Jarlath Burns

[Snapchap]

@snapchap you can't put your finger on whether I'm a RG cheerleader or have a chip on my shoulder regards JB because neither are true. I have no real vibe toward RG in any way shape or form, and if he's been involved in domestic abuse thats abhorrent. JB is a man of virtue, but not infallible.

If neither are the case then fair enough. Merely stating the vibe I got from your posts to date.

Remember we all laughed at the Fr Ted sketch of John and Mary beating the head off each other, be careful jumping to conclusions in the case of domestic abuse allegations

Indeed. But I'd also caution to be careful who you let in and around your GAA club.

I feel strongly that Jarlath took liberties with the new initiative and the Gallagher family, RG isn't the victim of domestic abuse that I'm aware of, quite possibly a perpetrator, but on this occasion JB has victimised RG, thats on JB

What liberties? The initiative was set up before the Naas issue. He simply referenced the initative, PRIVATELY, to them in PRIVATE correspondence. What would be the point in haivng an initiative about domestic violenceif you can't even reference it in a private phonecall about domestic violence? That was not some attempt to "take liberties with the Gallagher family". And I find it telling that you are so eager to reach for the sympathy card of portraying Burns' actions as some sort of attack on the wider family, rather than calling it what it was - a private discussion about the suitability of one specific member of that family for a coaching role at a club.

Jarlath has an initiative in place, a range of rules and guidance, committees, trained officials and responsible persons in lead roles, and access to relevant authorities, but he superseded all those to go after someone personally, he brought the full weight of his role to bear on an individual, crushing RG like this creates more problems than solutions

How do you know those people haven't been involved? When it comes to someone facing specifica alleagetions, particularly of abuse, these communications and processes don't tend to take place in the public domain. You are assuming they weren't because you didn't read about them in the paper. Just as you wouldn't have read about his private phonecall with the Naas chairman were it not for that fact that the email the chairman ASKED him to write, got leaked. Also, you say he was "bringing the weight of his role" down. It's akin to Milltown suggesting he was attempting to "put manners on" them. He explicitly stated in the email that he was merely expressing his concern for the welfare of the club, but that they were an autonomous unit and the decision was entirely theirs to make.

Jarlath favours tackling issues with a gender based focus, but he's targeted a man in a way I suggest he'd never target a woman, notice the LGFA President hasn't followed Jarlath's lead because its outside due process and scope of the role, and not in the spirit of the initiative to initiate a witch hunt

And we're back to my point. You, and a lot of others, are accusing him of only getting involved - by a remarkable conincidence - in the one issue that his involvement was leaked to the news about. The fact is, you have no idea what controversial incidents he, nor the LFGA president, made the same private phonecalls to clubs or county boards about. Because they remained private. As the Naas intevenetion was intended to have been.

[Milltown Row2]

As you have also stated, you've no idea on a lot of things regarding this. We are all making assumptions based on not all the facts. 

Who are you to say things are 'very telling' about peoples views? JB has opened the door when he didn't need to.

If someone phoned an potential employer of yours expressing concern on an job based on something that could be true or not you might have a different view on things.

[Wildweasel74]

To note, that's actually the 2nd club he phoned. How can you send a private email  in that position, surely it has to ve a official email, checked for legalities  before he send it? This is the same shit the chairperson in a council got long termed suspended for private emails to the DUP.

[Snapchap]

As you have also stated, you've no idea on a lot of things regarding this. We are all making assumptions based on not all the facts. 

I said it's those accusing him of not getting involved in other cases that have no idea whether he has been involved or not. A lot of posters seem to think he only gets involved in any case that happens to come to the attention of the media. I've made no such assumption.

Who are you to say things are 'very telling' about peoples views? JB has opened the door when he didn't need to.

Except Burns didn't open any door. Naas sought to appoint a man in the full knowledge that it was that appointment which would open the door to controversy. That's a chance they knowingly and willfully took and that's on them. Burns attempted to have a private conversation with their chairman behind a closed door. What I said was "telling" is that Tiempo seems unusually eager to drag Gallager's family into this for sympathy points, when in reality, Burns rasied concerns privately about Gallagher alone, and didn't drag his family into it, and certainly didn't do so publically. 

If someone phoned an potential employer of yours expressing concern on an job based on something that could be true or not you might have a different view on things.

If an alleged/suspect of being a violent abuser was put in charge of a team in your club, would you be absolutely fine with it? Would it be ligitimate for some people to have concerns?

[Snapchap]

To note, that's actually the 2nd club he phoned. How can you send a private email  in that position, surely it has to ve a official email, checked for legalities  before he send it? This is the same shit the chairperson in a council got long termed suspended for private emails to the DUP.

More asusmptions. How do you know what email address he used, or what checks he carried out or didn't carry out before sending it?

[tiempo]

Except Burns didn't open any door. Naas sought to appoint a man in the full knowledge that it was that appointment which would open the door to controversy. That's a chance they knowingly and willfully took and that's on them. Burns attempted to have a private conversation with their chairman behind a closed door. What I said was "telling" is that Tiempo seems unusually eager to drag Gallager's family into this for sympathy points, when in reality, Burns rasied concerns privately about Gallagher alone, and didn't drag his family into it, and certainly didn't do so publically.

How do you know they sought to appoint in the full knowledge it would open the door to controversy, this is conjecture, the Gaels of Corduff have evidently made it work

How do you know the call was behind a 'closed door' and wasn't on loudspeaker with RG listening, perhaps the Naas chair has more of an affinity with RG than JB e.g. prefers his methods, i.e. not underhand, mind you we don't know

Jarlath's actions have a wider impact on the Gallagher family e.g. mental health, Jarlath has gone on an solo run, I think we know this, or maybe we don't know

Its a very unpleasant position to be in for the Gallagher children knowing the President of the GAA is making disparaging representations against their dad, maybe we know this, maybe we don't know, they might have an altogether different take on their dad, we don't know

Due process matters and is a far higher necessity than initiatives that pass as window dressing, this we know, i think, maybe we don't know

[Armamike]

The easiest thing for Jarlath to do was to say/do nothing.  Whether people agree with his actions or not at least he's taken a stance and put himself out there to be criticised.

     

[Milltown Row2]

You are making assumptions but that's ok, anyone else making them not ok? Gotcha

JB opened the door for criticism of being selective in his closed door attempts of expressing his own view on how a club runs it's business

At what point is someone safe to carry out duties in a club? If you have a past that killed someone and convicted for it, is it ok to have that person in the club or does that depend on who they killed?

This email and call was never, I mean never going to be kept under the carpet. Once you type and send that, then this was always going to come out, some people prefer transparency  when dealing with matters some prefer it to be hidden and private

[Snapchap]

How do you know they sought to appoint in the full knowledge it would open the door to controversy, this is conjecture, the Gaels of Corduff have evidently made it work

Corduff made it work? They ignored the objections of their own ladies team and rode a storm of social media criticism once the appoitment became public knowledge. If you're serioulsy sugesting that Naas went after Rory Gallagher totally obvlivious to the possibility of it being potentially controversial, then this conversation/debate could well be a waste of time.

How do you know the call was behind a 'closed door' and wasn't on loudspeaker with RG listening, perhaps the Naas chair has more of an affinity with RG than JB e.g. prefers his methods, i.e. not underhand, mind you we don't know

Unless by remarkable chance RG happened to be sitting beside the chaiman when his phone rang. And unless you are suggesting that Burns knew that RG was in the room AND knew he'd be on speakerphone. I mean, nobody can say for sure, but its probably not a stretch to believe that he rang the chairman for a one-to-one phonecall ffs.

Jarlath's actions have a wider impact on the Gallagher family e.g. mental health, Jarlath has gone on an solo run, I think we know this, or maybe we don't know
Its a very unpleasant position to be in for the Gallagher children knowing the President of the GAA is making disparaging representations against their dad, maybe we know this, maybe we don't know, they might have an altogether different take on their dad, we don't know

So nobody facing allegations of abuse should be subjected to scrutiny or consequences for fear it upsets their family? The president made his concerns privately to the club. He didn't run to the papers to criticise the appointment. What part of that don't you get?

Due process matters and is a far higher necessity than initiatives that pass as window dressing, this we know, i think, maybe we don't know

Why are you singling out the initiative around domestic abouse as a "window dressing" one? Is the One Punch Can Kill initative also window dressing? It came on the back of a number of serious incidents too. Likewise previous initiatives like Drink Driving ones.

[Snapchap]

You are making assumptions but that's ok, anyone else making them not ok? Gotcha

What assumptions have I made? I didn't say he did contact other clubs around other controversial issues/people. I've said that there are lots of posters here assuming he hasn't and that they simply can't say that.

JB opened the door for criticism of being selective in his closed door attempts of expressing his own view on how a club runs it's business

Exhibit A. How do you know he was selective. You have absolutely no clue as to what other cases he has or has not made private represenatations around.
And as I said to Tiempo, is you are suggesting that the door to controversy wasn't opened by Naas when they sought to appoint someone who's appointment/near appoitment in Corduff and Derry just months/weeks previously whipped up controversy, then this debate is just pointless.

At what point is someone safe to carry out duties in a club? If you have a past that killed someone and convicted for it, is it ok to have that person in the club or does that depend on who they killed?

If someone has been convicted of murder, and someone else wants to raise a concern around their involvement with a club, then they are entitled to do so if they have genuine concerns and have a vested interested in the welfare of the club/association. Whether you agree they should have or not is a matter of opinion, but at least have rational reasons for holding that opinion, rather than being motivated by what looks in a lot of cases like just a dislike of the person raising the objetion. It's up to the club and the club alone to decide of the objectors concerns merit serious consideration.

This email and call was never, I mean never going to be kept under the carpet. Once you type and send that, then this was always going to come out, some people prefer transparency  when dealing with matters some prefer it to be hidden and private

Never going to remain under the carpet? On his Late Late Show appearance, Burns spoke about other cases that either he or others in the GAA, have been involved with confidentially. Of course things can remain private. That Should the GAA hierarchy never engage in serious matters that concern them, based on your assumption that anything they do or say will become public knowledge? Whether he was right or wrong to get involved is one thing, but he is not to blame for his involvement being leaked. Another poster said this is the second appointment of Gallagher that Burns was involved with. I have no idea if that's true. If it is, did anything he said, or any email, get leaked?

[Milltown Row2]

If the first involvement was leaked to the media then Burns would have to be a complete fool to think the second approach from him privately wouldn't have been leaked

You said it is up to the club, and well you are right, it is up to the club ALONE to decide how it approaches the involvement of coaches and managers, not JB. Also you don't kown if the club has approached its paid up membership on this appointment

Unless you know something is fact, then you are making assumptions on this

[tiempo]

Corduff made it work? They ignored the objections of their own ladies team and rode a storm of social media criticism once the appoitment became public knowledge. If you're serioulsy sugesting that Naas went after Rory Gallagher totally obvlivious to the possibility of it being potentially controversial, then this conversation/debate could well be a waste of time.

RG was on the line for Corduff, they made it work

Unless by remarkable chance RG happened to be sitting beside the chaiman when his phone rang. And unless you are suggesting that Burns knew that RG was in the room AND knew he'd be on speakerphone. I mean, nobody can say for sure, but its probably not a stretch to believe that he rang the chairman for a one-to-one phonecall ffs.

But we don't know that it was a 1:1 phonecall, unbecoming of the President to make the call/send the email

So facing allegations of abuse should be subjected to scrutiny or consequences for fear it upsets their family? The president made his concerns privately to the club. He didn't run to the papers to criticise the appointment. What part of that don't you get?

Its appropriate that legacy allegations that have been dealt with are left in the past, what I don't get is that Jarlath has dredged up the past to isolate one man, considering what the Gallagher family have likely been through yes their feelings do matter, they might want to put the past behind them, but you know, we don't know

Why are you singling out the initiative around domestic abouse as a "window dressing" one? Is the One Punch Can Kill initative also window dressing? It came on the back of a number of serious incidents too. Likewise previous initiatives like Drink Driving ones.

On 24 Nov there were safeguarding and escalation processes and roles, a legacy case and no Game Changer
On 25 Nov there were safeguarding and escalation processes and roles, a legacy case and Game Changer
By all reasonable measures the initiative is window dressing compared to the formal structures in place, one person in a position of power has sought to persecute another on the basis of personal principles that apparently became relevant after 25 Nov
Initiatives are great but they don't cover all eventualities or give carte blanche for a witch hunt

[Snapchap]

If the first involvement was leaked to the media then Burns would have to be a complete fool to thing the second approach from him privately wouldn't have been leaked

And that's kinda my point. Have you seen a leak from another club? I haven't. First I've heard of any other club having received a call from Burns was on this thread today.

You said it is up to the club, and well you are right, it is up to the club ALONE to decide how it approaches the involvement of coaches and managers, not JB.

Something acknowledged by JB in his email. And as he said in his Late Late Show interview, he felt a responsibility to make his concerns known as his role includes a requirement to look out for the welfare of the association. Whether you believe that part of his job description warrented his invtervention is a matter of opinion. As I've said, I'm fairly much on the fence. My issue is people who cleary just don't like Burns, coming up with bogus arguments and blind assumptions about what other cases he apparently most definitely didn't get involved in.

Also you don't kown if the club has approached its paid up membership on this appointment

Unless you know something is fact, then you are making assumptions on this

Where did I assume anything about a club approaching it's paid up membership?

[Snapchap]

Corduff made it work? They ignored the objections of their own ladies team and rode a storm of social media criticism once the appoitment became public knowledge. If you're serioulsy sugesting that Naas went after Rory Gallagher totally obvlivious to the possibility of it being potentially controversial, then this conversation/debate could well be a waste of time.

RG was on the line for Corduff, they made it work

Unless by remarkable chance RG happened to be sitting beside the chaiman when his phone rang. And unless you are suggesting that Burns knew that RG was in the room AND knew he'd be on speakerphone. I mean, nobody can say for sure, but its probably not a stretch to believe that he rang the chairman for a one-to-one phonecall ffs.

But we don't know that it was a 1:1 phonecall, unbecoming of the President to make the call/send the email

So facing allegations of abuse should be subjected to scrutiny or consequences for fear it upsets their family? The president made his concerns privately to the club. He didn't run to the papers to criticise the appointment. What part of that don't you get?

Its appropriate that legacy allegations that have been dealt with are left in the past, what I don't get is that Jarlath has dredged up the past to isolate one man, considering what the Gallagher family have likely been through yes their feelings do matter, they might want to put the past behind them, but you know, we don't know

Why are you singling out the initiative around domestic abouse as a "window dressing" one? Is the One Punch Can Kill initative also window dressing? It came on the back of a number of serious incidents too. Likewise previous initiatives like Drink Driving ones.

On 24 Nov there were safeguarding and escalation processes and roles, a legacy case and no Game Changer
On 25 Nov there were safeguarding and escalation processes and roles, a legacy case and Game Changer
By all reasonable measures the initiative is window dressing compared to the formal structures in place, one person in a position of power has sought to persecute another on the basis of personal principles that apparently became relevant after 25 Nov
Initiatives are great but they don't cover all eventualities or give carte blanche for a witch hunt

Ah I think I might just give up. Hard to have a rational debate when your arguments essentially are:

1. Corduff's appointment of RG "worked" despite knowing it caused internal conflict within the club and put the club at the centre of a social media storm of criticism.

2. That Naas weren't to know that appointing Gallagher might risk putting them in the same storm of controversy as it put Corduff and the Derry County Board in just weeks/months earlier for the same appoitment/attempted appointment.

3. That a phonecall from one person to another isn't an attempt at a one-to-one conversation.

3. That the GAA President didn't intervene in any other cases becuase you didn't read about them in the paper.

[gallsman]

Remember we all laughed at the Fr Ted sketch of John and Mary beating the head off each other, be careful jumping to conclusions in the case of domestic abuse allegations

I've nothing more to add but couldn't help but laugh at this being brought up as some form of argument. The joke behind that sketch isn't "hahaha lads, hasn't domestic violence hilarious hahaha" FFS.