Under-age training misconduct

Glass fused light

jmayo wrote: »

As for Athenry I have heard there were issues with the particular parents and their kids. I think we have all seen it where parents think their kids deserve better and are being victimised or some such.

If Athenry officials had not held a public meeting that may have been more relevant.
The fact they publicly announced that they had a problem with the parents objecting to a child safety rules being breached and spun it as a parental problem just validated the breach of process problem.

The fact that there was a Gardai report of assault back in 2015, should have made the officials sit up and notice to make sure that the coaches were covered by sticking to the child protection rules like glue.

jmayo wrote: »

But the Athenry club made a total bags of this by not doing something when asked and the way they garnered support from the other parents was bullying and not very nice at all, which means they only have themselves to blame for the ban.

The sad fact is other kids, coaches and parents in no way involved also suffer.

They should never have tried to garner support to begin with.
They should have tried to investigate and gather the facts, examine the facts in light of the rules and at least tried to reach a conclusion as to whether or not there was a problem.

If the club can learn from this the other children will be the long term winners.

Smith614

Most clubs would have a rule that u cant play in an older grade if you dont play in ur own age group. I've seen u12 players not wanting to play u12 but turning up for the u14 team. If a parent or player doesnt like a coach/selector on a team they cant decide not to play with that team & play with older team.

jmayo

Glass fused light wrote: »

If Athenry officials had not held a public meeting that may have been more relevant.
The fact they publicly announced that they had a problem with the parents objecting to a child safety rules being breached and spun it as a parental problem just validated the breach of process problem.

The fact that there was a Gardai report of assault back in 2015, should have made the officials sit up and notice to make sure that the coaches were covered by sticking to the child protection rules like glue.

They should never have tried to garner support to begin with.
They should have tried to investigate and gather the facts, examine the facts in light of the rules and at least tried to reach a conclusion as to whether or not there was a problem.

If the club can learn from this the other children will be the long term winners.

Hey if you look at my earlier posts here I have been the one claiming that the public meeting where the parents concerned were not invited and then the "show of support" at the second committee meeting in the hotel, contrary to the express instructions of the committee at the first meeting to keep this confidential, was really bullying and not on.

At this stage I think some people in the Athenry club hierarchy need to be removed so that the club can move into the 21st century and for the long term good of the club.
It doesn't matter if they have devoted their lives to the club, their operating methods are from a past we all need to move on from and they don't appear to be willing to learn times have bloody well changed.

Glass fused light

jmayo wrote: »

Hey if you look at my earlier posts here I have been the one claiming that the public meeting where the parents concerned were not invited and then the "show of support" at the second committee meeting in the hotel, contrary to the express instructions of the committee at the first meeting to keep this confidential, was really bullying and not on.

At this stage I think some people in the Athenry club hierarchy need to be removed so that the club can move into the 21st century and for the long term good of the club.
It doesn't matter if they have devoted their lives to the club, their operating methods are from a past we all need to move on from and they don't appear to be willing to learn times have bloody well changed.

Sorry I was only dipping in and out of the thread.

Better yet if they could convert, there is nothing like a reformed sinner!

Smith614

amazing the way the F word can bring down a club.

danganabu

Smith614 wrote: »

Most clubs would have a rule that u cant play in an older grade if you dont play in ur own age group. I've seen u12 players not wanting to play u12 but turning up for the u14 team. If a parent or player doesnt like a coach/selector on a team they cant decide not to play with that team & play with older team.

I have a strange feeling that this rule may find its way into the Athenry rule book in the not so distant future!!

evolving_doors

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I believe that was the intention, personally.

I dont believe he was wrong to convey this message, it was just the way he did it that was wrong (completely wrong at that). So that raises the question, if he hadnt made a dogs dinner of it, how would we view this scenario?

I actually think kimmage has loaded the article a bit by glossing over the whole putting 10 year old boys up against 13 and 14 year olds (skipping the u12s in the process) part. I find it strange that he didnt attempt to speak to the u14 manager who supposedly welcomed them with open arms, because he is a key figure in this, as his apparent approval, normalises an action for the reader that is in fact highly unusual. When you consider that the u14 team was going very well, which would suggest that this u14 team probably contains some of the best u14 players in the county, along with collectively being arguably the best group of 13/14 year olds in the county, surely two 10 year olds landing onto the panel requires more exploration in the piece?
I think these things werent done because they didnt suit the angle he wanted to pursue, which is his prerogative, but then it doesnt really offer a complete set of details either. Im not trying to excuse the secretary, Im just conscious that the details offered seem to direct a particular narrative to the reader.

That's not the issue.
Talking about something which happened subsequently is moot.
You may as well be saying it was wrong that the young lads were let have ice cream before their dinners... after being sworn at and held in a room on their own by an adult.
Unless of course it's trying to sully the reputation and motives of the parents.

granturismo

gifted wrote: »

I wonder if the Parents must knew a thing or two about hurling????.....

I think they do;

Happyilylost wrote: »

I...One of the parents (the dad) is an Athenry man all his life. And hurled for Athenry. He spoke to the U14 coach before anything happened. ...

You might also wonder if the club ever heard of 'The Code of Ethics and Good Practice for Children’s Sport in Ireland' or if the Chairperson or the coaches attended any of the mandatory GAA child protection courses for mentors.

danganabu

evolving_doors wrote: »

That's not the issue.
Talking about something which happened subsequently is moot.
You may as well be saying it was wrong that the young lads were let have ice cream before their dinners... after being sworn at and held in a room on their own by an adult.
Unless of course it's trying to sully the reputation and motives of the parents.

The incident in the dressing room happened after they were moved to U14 so your point is moo


And as a teacher I would expect you would have a small bit more concern for two 10 year olds being thrown into a highly physical sport with boys 4 years their elder and who have gone through puberty.

Calhoun

evolving_doors wrote: »

Unless of course it's trying to sully the reputation and motives of the parents.

Classic deflection, the issue as i see it was the clubs handling afterwards but you know how it is in Ireland some things are sacred until something really bad happens.

Glass fused light

danganabu wrote: »

I have a strange feeling that this rule may find its way into the Athenry rule book in the not so distant future!!

Not a lot of good that will do ,as they apparently dont follow the rules anyway.

danganabu

Glass fused light wrote: »

Not a lot of good that will do ,as they apparently dont follow the rules anyway.

I wasnt aware of any of their own club rules that they breached??

Glass fused light

danganabu wrote: »

I wasnt aware of any of their own club rules that they breached??

Apparently neither were they.

MayoAreMagic

evolving_doors wrote: »

That's not the issue.
Talking about something which happened subsequently is moot.
You may as well be saying it was wrong that the young lads were let have ice cream before their dinners... after being sworn at and held in a room on their own by an adult.
Unless of course it's trying to sully the reputation and motives of the parents.

Not the issue? I would consider it a relevant piece of information as regards getting a true reflection of the events rather than a one-sided narrative. Surely finding out such details is in fact the whole point of investigation? If you dont have all the details then how can you decide what the issue is and what isnt?

What you are saying is basically, the details dont matter. If a guy steals a loaf of bread to feed his kids, or steals a bus full of kids for a joyride, would you say well they both stole, the other details are not the issue? The other details are completely relevant.

As for trying to sully the motives and/or reputations of the parents, I would in fact consider it to be developing their motives. Those motives can turn out to be completely above board also, can they not?

K.G.

Do people think things are going to change in the club after this.i doubt it.i suspect they will window dress and pr things better but nobody is going to change what has worked so far for them

Billgirlylegs

K.G. wrote: »

Do people think things are going to change in the club after this.i doubt it.i suspect they will window dress and pr things better but nobody is going to change what has worked so far for them

Are they still suspended.?
If so, it isn’t going too well.
Apparently they have also lost at least one player.

No idea why people are calling the journalists motives into question.
The club was (is?) suspended.
The “story” is not makey up fantasy

blanch152

danganabu wrote: »

I wasnt aware of any of their own club rules that they breached??

They breached nearly every child protection guideline in the book, isn't that enough?

John_Rambo

danganabu wrote: »

I wasnt aware of any of their own club rules that they breached??

Do they have their own club rules that contravene the organisation rules?

blanch152

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Not the issue? I would consider it a relevant piece of information as regards getting a true reflection of the events rather than a one-sided narrative. Surely finding out such details is in fact the whole point of investigation? If you dont have all the details then how can you decide what the issue is and what isnt?

What you are saying is basically, the details dont matter. If a guy steals a loaf of bread to feed his kids, or steals a bus full of kids for a joyride, would you say well they both stole, the other details are not the issue? The other details are completely relevant.

As for trying to sully the motives and/or reputations of the parents, I would in fact consider it to be developing their motives. Those motives can turn out to be completely above board also, can they not?

The motives of the parents and the rights and wrongs of playing U-14 are completely immaterial.

The handling of the case by the club was abysmal. It was like something from the 1950s.

danganabu

blanch152 wrote: »

They breached nearly every child protection guideline in the book, isn't that enough?

Yes, yes it is but how is that relevant to the claim that they would breach their own club rules?

John_Rambo wrote: »

Do they have their own club rules that contravene the organisation rules?

No club rule can contravene an organisation rule, but every Club has supplementary rules governing the day to day running of a club, to be honest I thought this would have been obvious

MayoAreMagic

blanch152 wrote: »

The motives of the parents and the rights and wrongs of playing U-14 are completely immaterial.

The handling of the case by the club was abysmal. It was like something from the 1950s.

Immaterial to what end though?

Personally, I am trying to work out the full details of the case, and to that end they are completely relevant.

Maybe you could expand on what these, to my mind, completely relevant details, are immaterial to?

danganabu

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Personally, I am trying to work out the full details of the case, and to that end they are completely relevant.

No no Mayo you can't do that, you must pick a side and hammer the other side without any consideration to any other 'facts' or factors..........have you never read a Paul Kimmage article before at all??

Tell me how

MayoAreMagic wrote:

Maybe you could expand on what these, to my mind, completely relevant details, are immaterial to?

Even "If" if the claims of the parents initially, were made to be troublesome (which there is zero evidence that they were), the behavior of the club in holding a meeting where they were effectively ostracized is not in line with any good practice by member clubs of the GAA. And so those details (which are irrelevant to my mind) are immaterial.

MayoAreMagic

Tell me how wrote: »

Even "If" if the claims of the parents initially, were made to be troublesome (which there is zero evidence that they were), the behavior of the club in holding a meeting where they were effectively ostracized is not in line with any good practice by member clubs of the GAA. And so those details (which are irrelevant to my mind) are immaterial.

But the same point could be made the other way, i.e. the parents actions are not good practice in respect to the running of a sports club, with the clubs subsequent actions 'immaterial' to that also.

Neither point is particularly useful as regards developing the full story though...


Furthermore, the details regarding the meeting were the parents were 'ostracised', is clearly debated by the club in the article. They contend that the parents refused to show up to several meetings. If that was the case, then that puts the club committee in a tough situation, and in those circumstances you could see how people might come to the conclusion that they 'better call a meeting about all this to let everyone involved know what is going on', rather than 'we need to row the wagons against these people'. For that reason, the details are anything but immaterial.
I don't see how you can take one version of events and decide that everything they say is correct and the other's wrong. The attitude seems to be just because they got the journalist involved, therefore everything they say must be right.

Gaillimh1976

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

the parents actions are not good practice in respect to the running of a sports club,


.

The parents were not running a sports club ???

danganabu

Gaillimh1976 wrote: »

The parents were not running a sports club ???

All members of a club are involved in running a club, its how a club works.

brocbrocach

This outrage and slant that's being put on the young lads being spoken to on their own is really getting my goat. When did these newly introduced guidelines become a moral code?
It's bad practice and a breach of child protection guidelines but it happens a hundred times in a thousand sportsclubs and schools every year and sometimes it's for the best. Like a lot of Health and Safety and Child Protection guidelines it's a hit and miss way to cut out margin of error. If there wasn't bad relations between the club and parents and if there weren't question marks over what the official said to them it would be so trivial that it wouldn't be worth commenting on.

MayoAreMagic

Gaillimh1976 wrote: »

The parents were not running a sports club ???

Well it remains to be seen if they themselves were members. That was left out of the article also... If they were members then the running of it is their shared responsibility, and choosing to flout club protocol, in what I would argue is an inflammatory manner towards other club members, is detrimental to the running of a club.

If they are not members, but their children are then they would still be expected to go along with how the club operates, with the assumption being that their getting involved with the club would mean that they actually want to be part of what they club does, so the above still applies. This idea that a club is there to serve you/your kids, and the other members are there to do all the running of it, is unfortunately as prevalent in clubs today as it is flawed.

To say it bluntly, pulling your kids and then putting them in at 2 age groups up, is delivering a bit of a message to the management and other parents in their proper age group and it very much goes against the club ethos in general. That would create unrest in any kind of club up and down the country and it is more than a little inflammatory. Particularly when the u14 team were in fact one of the best teams in the county at their grade. I dont believe that these parents were naive to the levels required for all that to be entirely lost on them. Do you?

That is why these details are important - it shows that this thing probably wasnt as one-sided as kimmage suggests.

Glass fused light

brocbrocach wrote: »

This outrage and slant that's being put on the young lads being spoken to on their own is really getting my goat. When did these newly introduced guidelines become a moral code?
It's bad practice and a breach of child protection guidelines but it happens a hundred times in a thousand sportsclubs and schools every year and sometimes it's for the best. Like a lot of Health and Safety and Child Protection guidelines it's a hit and miss way to cut out margin of error. If there wasn't bad relations between the club and parents and if there weren't question marks over what the official said to them it would be so trivial that it wouldn't be worth commenting on.

In this club a complaint of assault on an child by an adult was made to the Gardai in 2015, unproven.
There was a written letter of complaint sent in about a the behaviour of the u-10's coach, and no apparent action was taken.
This behaviour continued and apparently resulted in two lads being moved out from the team.
Then an offical 'cornered' the two childern by isolating them away from the parents and the team and the other adult mentors, and made comments which should have been directed at the parents or the u-14 coach.
The parent went to HQ, who asks the club to resolve the issue and no apparent action was taken, and HQ had to step in.

The protection works both ways, and in this instance the club failed to act or failed to be seen to be acting, and by doing that put the adults at risk. Every club has issues at some stage. If there was a conflict between mentors and the parents, the club had a duty of care to the adults to have a dispute resolution system in place for the adults.

If the dispute was over the bad language and the club resolution was that the lads moved up the second incident would not have happened. The official should have approached the u-14 training team and objected through them. An alternative resolution could have been that the parents were told that they needed to find a new club as the children could only train with the u-10's. Realistically the coach should have been asked to clean up the languge. But there should have been a way for the mentors and parents to communicate.

The club meeting after the first phase of the investigation is where the real issue lies. The club itself acknowledged that there were 2 child protection issues involved.
1) The bad language which may be classed as trivial by some (not to me)
2) The being alone with a minor which can't be classed as trivial by anyone, it's there to protect both the adult and the child.
The meeting breached the confidentiality of the report, by doing this moved into a serious child endangerment problem. That the club would support the officials at the expense of the guidelines.
By this act they were pitting the club against the children, they send a clear message to all members to put up and shut up.

Realistically, today, if a child was worried about the behaviour of an adult or older child member who was well liked would they or their parent, now, make any effort to bring that behaviour to the attention of anyone in the club? IMO when the adults in charge cant or wont see the danger is when it has to become a moral code.

Gaillimh1976

Glass fused light wrote: »

The meeting breached the confidentiality of the report, by doing this moved into a serious child endangerment problem. That the club would support the officials at the expense of the guidelines.
By this act they were pitting the club against the children, they send a clear message to all members to put up and shut up.

.

Exactly !!!

There is no doubt there was wrong on both sides, but at the end of the day the paragraph above is the meat of the issue

Calling that meeting puts the club 100% in the wrong as far as Croke Park are concerned and they have dealt with that accordingly

brocbrocach

There was no "serious child endangerment".
There was a potential for guidelines to be disregared at the whim of the club officials but there's a huge difference between the two.
Accepting that the club was in the wrong for not following best procedure is a long way from saying that they put children in danger.

Glass fused light

brocbrocach wrote: »

There was no "serious child endangerment".
There was a potential for guidelines to be disregared at the whim of the club officials but there's a huge difference between the two.
Accepting that the club was in the wrong for not following best procedure is a long way from saying that they put children in danger.

IMO By not following procedure put in place to investigate a child welfare issue they put every child and adult associated with the club in danger.

In a club with conflict, had the adults been protected, even if from themselves, by not being allowed 'whimsical' behavior it would not have ended up in the national newspaper. The guidelines are there to protect the good name of the adults who give their time and energy to train the children. There would have been no story if the club had actually made some attempt to follow the guidelines before and after it ended up with the complaint going into HQ.

This * edit * whimsical behaviour in these circumstance*end edit * while foolish was (other than learning to use bad language) a long way from putting the childern in danger.


As for the breach of confidentiality.
Once the club was forced to acknowledged that both complaints needed to be taken seriously and that HQ was stepping in?
Their reaction was to attempt to interfere with the process by publicly naming the childern in a meetings of parents.
Parents who would all have had an opinion and children who would be associating with the two 10 year old children ie the alleged victims and their parents.

The shut up message was clear, if you make a complaint be prepared to run the gauntlet of disapproval. In this case it was a physical gauntlet of adults showing up at the hotel.

What happens if it was a claim of a more serious nature should a child have to be prepared for this or a worse reaction from the adults who should have known better. In real life the child and parent won't report a concern to the club they will just leave. Leaving the "offender" within the club and leaving the remaining children at risk.


Why do you think that the physical and sexual abuse of women and men and children was swept under the carpet for so long in this country? Why do you think that the we have to introduce legistation to protect whistleblowers? Could it be that we tended to shoot the messengers rather than recognising that shoot first and ask questions later is as dumb as it sounds.


So yes the action after the first meeting is a serious child endangerment issue.

blanch152

brocbrocach wrote: »

There was no "serious child endangerment".
There was a potential for guidelines to be disregared at the whim of the club officials but there's a huge difference between the two.
Accepting that the club was in the wrong for not following best procedure is a long way from saying that they put children in danger.

There absolutely was.

Any organisation that breaches confidence around child protection complaints is guilty of serious child endangerment. No ifs or buts.

I am astonished at the failure to understand this throughout the thread.

For an organisation involving children to function at all requires confidentiality around all issues to do with child welfare. Anything else means that no parent or child can have confidence in the complaints process. That means that there is a serious child protection issue.

I am glad that the GAA has been so proactive in this regard and suspended the club. The club should respond by banning the officials involved in the meeting with all parents from holding any official position for life in the GAA. An apology needs to issue to the parents and the two children.

Think about it. We should not be able to discuss in a public forum the rights or wrongs about what two clearly identifiable children and their parents have done in a club. The reason we can is because the club broke the confidence. The club are a disgrace.

evolving_doors

danganabu wrote: »

The incident in the dressing room happened after they were moved to U14 so your point is moo


And as a teacher I would expect you would have a small bit more concern for two 10 year olds being thrown into a highly physical sport with boys 4 years their elder and who have gone through puberty.

Oh well that makes it all ok so doesn't it!

evolving_doors

Calhoun wrote: »

Classic deflection, the issue as i see it was the clubs handling afterwards but you know how it is in Ireland some things are sacred until something really bad happens.

Right back at you. The issue as I see it was kids being swore at and detained in a room on their own with an adult.

evolving_doors

Gaillimh1976 wrote: »

The parents were not running a sports club ???

danganabu wrote: »

All members of a club are involved in running a club, its how a club works.

Oh , i get it now, so its the kids parents fault for having their own children sworn at and detained in a room alone with an adult.

danganabu

evolving_doors wrote: »

Oh well that makes it all ok so doesn't it!

evolving_doors wrote: »

Oh , i get it now, so its the kids parents fault for having their own children sworn at and detained in a room alone with an adult.

For an alleged teacher your reading and comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired :rolleyes:

blanch152

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Immaterial to what end though?

Personally, I am trying to work out the full details of the case, and to that end they are completely relevant.

Maybe you could expand on what these, to my mind, completely relevant details, are immaterial to?

Why are you trying to work out the full details of the case?

An incident occurred involving children. You or anyone else on the internet or in the GAA, outside those investigating the incident, should know absolutely nothing about the details of the incident. No ifs or buts.

In this case, you do know something. Why? Because the club endangered those children by releasing the details. And now, you want even more detail. It really beggars belief.

Stoner

danganabu wrote:

For an alleged teacher your reading and comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired

How did you know the user was a teacher? Was it mentioned once or twice?

BrianBoru00

Having heard more about this case - I'm absolutely disgusted with Kimmage over this sensationalist bull****.

He could have clarified that the parent was "a very well known member of the club with a lifelong involvement at a high level " to give us a sense but that would have been a mitigating circumstance.

There's a lot more than this and there's two sides to this story and the parent in question by all accounts is not averse to throwing sulks.


No question the club handles this terribly but its not a family new to the club with shy children being verbally abused by a coach.

Fann Linn

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Having heard more about this case - I'm absolutely disgusted with Kimmage over this sensationalist bull****.

He could have clarified that the parent was "a very well known member of the club with a lifelong involvement at a high level " to give us a sense but that would have been a mitigating circumstance.

There's a lot more than this and there's two sides to this story and the parent in question by all accounts is not averse to throwing sulks.


No question the club handles this terribly but its not a family new to the club with shy children being verbally abused by a coach.

Should it make any difference if it was a family new to the club with shy kids being verbally abused by a coach?

BrianBoru00

Fann Linn wrote: »

Should it make any difference if it was a family new to the club with shy kids being verbally abused by a coach?

Yes. It makes a huge difference. The slant on the article is that two children were ostracised and the club circled the wagons to enhance this.

As I said there's an awful lot more to the story and there's a lot of history here which was not even alluded in the article.
But its a well known member of the club who is the parent and there own track record as coach of underage teams is not perfect either.

Fann Linn

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Yes. It makes a huge difference. The slant on the article is that two children were ostracised and the club circled the wagons to enhance this.

As I said there's an awful lot more to the story and there's a lot of history here which was not even alluded in the article.
But its a well known member of the club who is the parent and there own track record as coach of underage teams is not perfect either.

But the club did circle the wagons and acted contrary to GAA HQ.

BrianBoru00

Fann Linn wrote: »

But the club did circle the wagons and acted contrary to GAA HQ.

Where did I say otherwise?

Glass fused light

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Yes. It makes a huge difference. The slant on the article is that two children were ostracised and the club circled the wagons to enhance this.

As I said there's an awful lot more to the story and there's a lot of history here which was not even alluded in the article.
But its a well known member of the club who is the parent and there own track record as coach of underage teams is not perfect either.

You just don't get it.

The fact that there was a lot more to the story and a lot more history is why what the club did was so wrong. No excuses. No mitigation. 100% wrong.

The breach of confidentiality, was the individual members involved proving that if there was a conflict they would continue infighting at the risk of the safety of a child. The report was about two 10 year old children. How serious did a complaint have to be before the club took responsibility to deal with the problem. The child protect process should never be about the popularity or success of any coaches, parent or child. If the club implements the guidelines and a process correctly it's a shield which can't be used as a weapon.

While the adults may have all have been dicks and could be pulling out measuring tapes to prove it, the club should have had a child protection policy and an actual process capable of dealing with the conflict and protecting the children, or at least recognise that they (the club) needed help.

Not only did the club prove that they had no such process.
They proved that they would not just ignore the process HQ put in place to deal with the report.
They proved that they would actively and deliberately sabotage the process.

BrianBoru00

Glass fused light wrote: »

You just don't get it.

The fact that there was a lot more to the story and a lot more history is why what the club did was so wrong. No excuses. No mitigation. 100% wrong.

The breach of confidentiality, was the individual members involved proving that if there was a conflict they would continue infighting at the risk of the safety of a child. The report was about two 10 year old children. How serious did a complaint have to be before the club took responsibility to deal with the problem. The child protect process should never be about the popularity or success of any coaches, parent or child. If the club implements the guidelines and a process correctly it's a shield which can't be used as a weapon.

While the adults may have all have been dicks and could be pulling out measuring tapes to prove it, the club should have had a child protection policy and an actual process capable of dealing with the conflict and protecting the children, or at least recognise that they (the club) needed help.

Not only did the club prove that they had no such process.
They proved that they would not just ignore the process HQ put in place to deal with the report.
They proved that they would actively and deliberately sabotage the process.

Again, Nowhere did I contradict this. And I stated in my first post on the matter that the club has handled it atrociously - in fact its a text book example of what not to do.

My problem is the tone and the sensationalism and lack of balance. "The story every GAA parent should read" implying this to be a widespread issue in GAA clubs.
It's not and there has been huge work put in to identify new roles for child protection officers and liaison officers etc. to eradicate and prevent problems.

Anyone who takes the time to read it all and understand what has happened would see Athenry as a rogue club in this context with National and county levels taking action when they were not happy with the clubs own handling of the situation.

I'm horrified at the actions of the club but I've also experience of situations with parents who are basically sh*t stirrers. In any case I've dealt with I would ascertained all the facts from each partys point of view -some of which will be explicitly off the record (there will be "well known" but "unproven" facts about people etc). There is never a 100% right or 100% wrong.
As a coach I would be particularly welcoming to children from families new to the area or who wouldn't have an experience with the GAA - Its important to take time with these people to involve them whereas I'd feel less of a need with children of former team mates for example as they're going to keep coming anyway.

There's one coach named and comes across badly.
True language like that should not be used liberally with young children. But that's one negative. There are an awful lot of positives to that coach as well - as quoted in the article "the kids are mad about.." the coach.

Another point - an U10 or U11 are not allowed to play U14 - as per GAA rule book. The secretary who remained in the dug out was I understand telling the children this - they were given the jersey on that occasion but they would not be allowed to again as per official rules (another rule brought in to improve child welfare). . . Now how he said it, what tone or what language used will be known by him and the two children. Perhaps the tone was aggressive -We don't know for sure.

There's quite a bit of history as I understand it but the fact is that sensationalist headlines catches the eye and in the advertisements for the paper - many times more people will have heard the headline "The GAA story every parent must read" than will read the article as written. And particularly if they are not a "GAA family" it might dissuade them from joining a club thinking that this carry on is typical - It's not

K.G.

I saw recently and in another context where the machinery of child protection was being used to bully someone by parents in their work place. In this case a relatively innocuous situation was built up into a big thing and the minute they had got their way it was all forgotten about

blanch152

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Again, Nowhere did I contradict this. And I stated in my first post on the matter that the club has handled it atrociously - in fact its a text book example of what not to do.

My problem is the tone and the sensationalism and lack of balance. "The story every GAA parent should read" implying this to be a widespread issue in GAA clubs.
It's not and there has been huge work put in to identify new roles for child protection officers and liaison officers etc. to eradicate and prevent problems.

Anyone who takes the time to read it all and understand what has happened would see Athenry as a rogue club in this context with National and county levels taking action when they were not happy with the clubs own handling of the situation.

I'm horrified at the actions of the club but I've also experience of situations with parents who are basically sh*t stirrers. In any case I've dealt with I would ascertained all the facts from each partys point of view -some of which will be explicitly off the record (there will be "well known" but "unproven" facts about people etc). There is never a 100% right or 100% wrong.
As a coach I would be particularly welcoming to children from families new to the area or who wouldn't have an experience with the GAA - Its important to take time with these people to involve them whereas I'd feel less of a need with children of former team mates for example as they're going to keep coming anyway.

There's one coach named and comes across badly.
True language like that should not be used liberally with young children. But that's one negative. There are an awful lot of positives to that coach as well - as quoted in the article "the kids are mad about.." the coach.

Another point - an U10 or U11 are not allowed to play U14 - as per GAA rule book. The secretary who remained in the dug out was I understand telling the children this - they were given the jersey on that occasion but they would not be allowed to again as per official rules (another rule brought in to improve child welfare). . . Now how he said it, what tone or what language used will be known by him and the two children. Perhaps the tone was aggressive -We don't know for sure.

There's quite a bit of history as I understand it but the fact is that sensationalist headlines catches the eye and in the advertisements for the paper - many times more people will have heard the headline "The GAA story every parent must read" than will read the article as written. And particularly if they are not a "GAA family" it might dissuade them from joining a club thinking that this carry on is typical - It's not

None of the details of the case matter.

We shouldn't be able to talk about it because it should have been kept confidential by the club. The club is the problem.

If the whole story was made up by the two lads, if the parents are complete dicks, if they bullied their way into the U-14s, if the maligned coach was only having one bad day and only uttered two swear words, etc. etc., it doesn't matter. The only issue is that the club broke the confidence of a child protection process. That is just so serious that the truth or otherwise of the allegations just don't matter.

It is quite scary to see how the club don't realise this and how so many people on the internet don't either.

BrianBoru00

blanch152 wrote: »

None of the details of the case matter.

We shouldn't be able to talk about it because it should have been kept confidential by the club. The club is the problem.

If the whole story was made up by the two lads, if the parents are complete dicks, if they bullied their way into the U-14s, if the maligned coach was only having one bad day and only uttered two swear words, etc. etc., it doesn't matter. The only issue is that the club broke the confidence of a child protection process. That is just so serious that the truth or otherwise of the allegations just don't matter.

It is quite scary to see how the club don't realise this and how so many people on the internet don't either.

Who on the internet are you referring to?


Of course the details of the case matter. Where are you getting your information on the case?




I

blanch152

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Who on the internet are you referring to?


Of course the details of the case matter. Where are you getting your information on the case?




I

The details don't matter because only those involved in the confidential process should know about them.

I do not care whether the parents were right or wrong, the coach was right or wrong, or the kids were right or wrong. This is a child protection issue and should remain confidential.

The holding of the public meeting by the club is the only issue. That was a complete disgrace and the relevant club officials who held it should be banned for life from holding a position in the GAA.