Spain - Women World Cup Champions - 1 week later. (How not to manage a crises)

What blog is this?

What's the LGA?

There is no prerequisite of any level of playing experience to volunteer for coaching at my club.

Everyone know playing experience is not a requirement, but is a very useful trait in coaching, and very often a reason why coaches will get involved in the first place.

Well it really isn't. The term playing experience is very vague anyway. I still don't know what the "LGA" is, but camogie is exclusively played by women so for the logic to be true 100% of camogie managers should be female.

Most people who played or didn't play wouldn't have a notion on the correct way to teach a juvenile the basics, that's why there is courses.

Most people who played or didn't play wouldn't have a notion of what drills would be appropriate to what ages, again courses.

Absolutely nothing stopping women taking up coaching rolls, we are crying out for anyone.

you do need coaching from people who have experience to develop as players.

The experience to develop players comes from coaching.

The best coaches are normally the ones with coaching experience.

The blog link is in the post I replied to.

You do know that camogie is hurling essentially, with an identical skill set?

And is it difficult to comprehend that the people with the most interest in coaching tend to be those that played the sport? And that up to the last 20 years or less the amount of women that played was a tiny fraction compared to the number of men?

Is an ability and love for a sport not an advantage when trying to coach?

Gone up a few notches now.

Women have been playing sport for generations.

The primary reason they are dropping out or not entering coaching is because they don't want to in my experience. It's also the reality of the answers they give when they actually asked. And that has to be respected. They do plenty other important things around the running of the GAA club that seems to go unnoticed because they aren't out on the sign screaming in vain at children.

The more the better, but no one wants forced equality to make the stats look good, particularly women.

-------------------------

Anyway back on topic.

I said the blog alluded to it.

The original claim was they had to keep their doors unlocked until he personally checked on them, then they were allowed lock their doors.

Legal action now.

It's going to get messier for Rubiales

So why say this so;

Unfounded Boggles nonsense.

Just to add to the sheer weight of what is occurring.

People may have forgotten or may not be aware but the alleged crime took place in Australia not Spain.

So in most cases the crime would have to be dealt with in the jurisdiction it occurred in.

So that is the reason it is being prosecuted by one of the highest courts in Spain, the National Court. They have the ability to prosecute alleged crimes that occurred in other jurisdictions.

In 1985 Spain passed an Organic Law that defined the jurisdiction of Spanish courts in criminal cases. The law gave Spanish courts jurisdiction in several kinds of cases, such as when the criminal act took place on Spanish soil or when the perpetrator of the crime is of Spanish nationality.

Additionally, the new law gave Spanish courts jurisdiction over cases related to a particular type of international crimes – ones that are of international concern – regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator or where the crime took place. This section of the law incorporates the principle of “universal jurisdiction” – the principle that certain crimes are so egregious that they are offenses against the entire world and can therefore be tried in the national courts of any country. Some of these crimes were listed in the law, including genocide, terrorism and piracy. A residual clause also grants jurisdiction for “any other [criminal act] which, according to international covenants and treaties, should be prosecuted in Spain.” It has been argued that this residual clause incorporates the offenses of torture and crimes against humanity.

The principle of universal jurisdiction is not particular to Spain. International treaties, including the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture, permit and, in some cases, require nations to prosecute perpetrators of egregious human rights abuses even if those nations have no connection to the crimes. Until recently however, the principle of universal jurisdiction was largely aspirational, an ideal discernible in bodies of international law, but lacking in concrete precedent.

This changed dramatically in 1996, when instructing judges from the SNC invoked the new Spanish law to begin investigating human rights cases arising from the ‘Dirty War’ era in Argentina and Pinochet dictatorship in Chile. The Argentine cases involved the investigation of some 100 suspects. The Chilean cases focused on former dictator Augusto Pinochet and his subordinates. The case against Pinochet in Spain, and his arrest in England based on an extradition request from Spain, launched the modern concept of universal jurisdiction and opened the door to the exercise of universal jurisdiction over human rights crimes by national courts.

I wonder is it the first time it has been used in such a case.

This is a fairly hefty tool to pull out of the judiciary box for such an alleged crime.

He didn't lock them in their rooms, it was more sinister than that. He told the young women to leave their doors unlocked so that he, an old man, could check whether they were in bed, now how appropriate do you think that was?