15th May 2008, 08:39 PM
Posted by Trowelfodder:
If an investigation has been conducted weakly or poorly, it is much more likely to be because of a lack of resources, powers and investigatory skills than because of a lack of impartiality. Remember, the IFA are not the police. That doesn't mean that this isn't a problem, but it does mean that we should not cast aspersions at the personal integrity of those who conduct the investigations (and I have no idea who they were).
In relation to my quotation from Trowelfodder, if the person has been cleared by an investigation, why shouldn't they speak at the IFA conference? Even if the complaint was proved, disciplinary action is not very likely to include banning a person from speaking at a conference, and admitting them as a speaker says nothing about the IFA's impartiality. So far as I know, the disciplinary committee does not vet the list of conference speakers.
As for the conference being 'on his home patch' - I'm sure it was on lots of other people's home patch as well. Should a particular region be banned from hosting a conference because there has been a complaint about an individual who lives there? We would pretty quickly run out of places where the conference could happen.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:It was also interesting to note as a mark of how impartial the investigation was that the person who was the subject of the allegation spoke at the ifas annual conference this year, and it was held on his home patch. Something smells rotten to me!!!!I don't know the individual case, and I have only read one side of the argument about how the investigation was conducted, so I have no view about whether the complaint was correctly or incorrectly thrown out. However, I would just like to mention the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' - ie, if the complaint has not been positively proved, then the person must be innocent.
If an investigation has been conducted weakly or poorly, it is much more likely to be because of a lack of resources, powers and investigatory skills than because of a lack of impartiality. Remember, the IFA are not the police. That doesn't mean that this isn't a problem, but it does mean that we should not cast aspersions at the personal integrity of those who conduct the investigations (and I have no idea who they were).
In relation to my quotation from Trowelfodder, if the person has been cleared by an investigation, why shouldn't they speak at the IFA conference? Even if the complaint was proved, disciplinary action is not very likely to include banning a person from speaking at a conference, and admitting them as a speaker says nothing about the IFA's impartiality. So far as I know, the disciplinary committee does not vet the list of conference speakers.
As for the conference being 'on his home patch' - I'm sure it was on lots of other people's home patch as well. Should a particular region be banned from hosting a conference because there has been a complaint about an individual who lives there? We would pretty quickly run out of places where the conference could happen.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished