Totally unexpectedly, and without any provocation whatsoever, Gordon McMahon announced that he will no longer teach Siobhan and the only other Open dancer in his classes in the Milton Keynes area. When pressed he clearly states that he is impressed with the standard of Siobhan’s dancing and the level of work & commitment she brings to class, so he does not have issue with this. However, he now refuses to teach her, meaning she is banned from the Worlds 2007

Here's the full story BUT before you read on let me explain my motives for posting this information. If I had just said she was banned without reason, everyone would assume that this was untrue and that the TC had good cause. After all who would believe that one of the top dancers in her age group would be dropped without cause? I know, as I've reacted the same when I've heard similar stories about other dancers. A few months after Siobhan joined SEM a disgruntled former SEM dancer posted on our forum in a manner that was quite strongly anti-GM/RE, and discussed how badly they had been treated. I assumed it was all rubbish, gave a copy to Gordon, and deleted it. They did not have a reputation for such behaviour so I didn't believe it and by deleting the posting I helped to protect his reputation. Sadly I have since also seen that bad side of GM. I therefore hope that by giving a blow by blow account of her time with SEM some people will see past their preconceived notion of the way the two TC behave and understand that perhaps this partcular situation was as unfair as I say. Others will disagree but that's life........All I ask is that you try to keep an open mind, and perhaps if this happens to another dancer you will be more inclined to believe them.

So Siobhan joined SEM, a decision we now realise was a mistake.............

Apart from giving up every weekend for this, it was also a 300 mile round trip for us on Saturday and a 130 round trip on Sunday. Siobhan attended virtually every class as she understood the importance of the team work involved and this more than demonstrates her commitment levels to SEM over this time.

Over the same period I received hundreds of phone calls from RE usually on a daily basis, asking me to produce Newsletters for Bristol, create class registers for all of the other classes, collate registration details, help other people find hotels for the AI’s, in fact anything she wanted help with. I was also asked to find a hotel for everyone attending the World’s, and then arrange all bookings. I was obviously happy to help, but had not instigated any of this, and would have preferred not to get involved, particularly as she made it clear that she was trying to stop some of the Bristol parents from being involved, in particular the mother of two older dancers who had helped her for many years.

Great Britain’s 2005

With the Great Britain's fast approaching Siobhan was asked to bring her dress to class for RE to see. At that time she had 2 fairly new dresses, both of which still fitted. The first was her black Gavin. RE took one look and said with total disdain "who made that?!" When we told her it was a Gavin, she said "it can't be" as if we were making it up. It's definitely a Gavin, I've got the overdraft to prove it! She then decided that it might be, but it was one of his worst. You can imagine how good that made Siobhan feel ;o( So Siobhan put on her other dress, a very pretty pink Siopa Rince dress from Phoebe, and RE responded with "what on earths that, where did you get it? There's no way she can wear either of them!" So she insisted that we go to Gavin again, without any thought as to whether we could afford to. However, we realised that we had little choice and realistically we understood that they would want Siobhan to look different as their dancer. After all, it's only money! And of course Gavin produced yet another fabulous dress.

In November Siobhan attended the Great Britain’s in Brean Sands where she had a good result (in her very pretty new dress!). However, at the next class in Bristol GM & RE subjected her to a tirade of complaints as she had spent time with her friends in the same age group at the Great Britain’s. It was made very clear to her that this was not allowed and would not be tolerated in future. This was quite a shock to Siobhan as she had known the other dancers for years and had never been restricted by her previous teachers in this way. It soon became apparent that this was how they behaved all of the time if someone didn't do as expected, but they never set any ground rules first.

Non-Attendance

Classes continued normally until January when RE began to miss some of our local classes. By this time a third class had been started at a different venue but on the same day as one of the classes that RE covered. She missed just under half of the classes between January and the World’s, with 4 weeks on the trot due to illness although still managing to attend all classes in the Bristol and Gloucester area, on the days both before and after our local classes. In addition she arranged for an unqualified dancer to cover most of these missed classes, in direct contravention of CLRG rules. There was even one afternoon when RE telephoned me, and asked me to arrange a train ticket from Birmingham for another unqualified dancer, as he was covering the class.

Siobhan continued to attend the Bristol classes during this time and was continually told by RE that she wasn't very good and was never going to be a good team dancer. A few weeks before the World’s Siobhan mentioned to another dancer, whom we had given a lift home, that she did not intend to continue Figure and Ceili after the World’s as she did not enjoy it that much and it had taken too much of her time whilst she was meant to be studying for her A Levels. He advised her that RE would throw her out of the school if she heard that. We assumed that this was not true at the time, but his words are back to haunt us now

At the World’s Siobhan did well in her age group, gaining 10th place and a medal. GM had been very supportive but she was disappointed to find that RE seemed to be so disinterested that she didn’t watch the competition and didn’t even know her result. By then of course we'd realised that her only concern was the teams, and beating Doherty school.

After the Worlds

The last night before we came home we all sat in the hotel bar, and I was surprised to find what a poor loser RE was. They had been beaten in the Mixed Figure, and the way she described the performance you would have thought Doherty were rubbish. She even suggested that I say so on this site. Please note that this has no connection to the Worlds report that I subsequently published on this site.

(That caused a stir as people misunderstood my comments that I thought SEM were better than Doherty. Having publicly apologised to several forum postings for any offence caused I amended the report. To set the record straight, I thought they danced very well, and I wasn't surprised they won. The marking of the competition must have been very close.

RE also advised us that she would not be attending our “local” classes for 2 weeks. Unfortunately this became 6/7 weeks and each time we asked GM when she was to return he didn’t seem to know. Eventually she returned in June and we looked forward to classes resuming.

It had been usual for me, at her request, to meet her after the early class. This was because she found the route to the second class difficult to remember, and she preferred to follow me in her car. However, on the night of the classes resuming I was going to be a little late so called her to let her know and suggest that she started out and call me if she lost her way. I received no response from her and she failed to turn up at the class. I then received a call from another dancer to say that the later class was permanently cancelled. None of the dancers that attended had been told and I have not heard from RE since. In fact Siobhan has had no contact with her since the Worlds.

Classes continued okay with GM until July when he asked Siobhan and the other Open dancer what their plans were as he had heard that Siobhan was going to change schools. This was not true and I called GM afterwards to reassure him that Siobhan had gone through a period where she had considered giving up her dancing totally because she felt she was missing classes with RE, was too busy with her exams to focus properly with the dancing and was under pressure from GM to compete in the Nationals which were a week after her exams. I advised him that this phase had soon passed and she was keen to get an even better result at all of the major events this year. I also reminded him that we had previously discussed that she intended to defer her University placement until 2007, and had actually done so, in order to focus on her dancing with SEM. GM seemed to accept this and nothing more was said.

Final phase

Siobhan did not want to attend the Nationals in July as she would just be finishing her A levels and needed to focus her attention on them. At the last class in July (which was the 19^th as on the 26^th GM was going to be at the Nationals) he said he would send a newsletter by the following Monday to advise when classes and workshops would be in August. As we hadn’t heard by Wednesday 2^nd August I called GM and received a text message back saying that newsletters were coming out and there was no class that night as SEM were in rehearsals. I assume he meant they were holding workshops in Bristol for the Ceili & Figure teams, and that he was therefore going down there instead.

We never did receive a newsletter and eventually heard from another parent that they thought that the next class would not be held until the 6th September. On Wednesday 6^th September we had still not had confirmation of the class but made the 35 mile trip (which takes us 45 minutes) “just in case”. On arrival we found that all of the beginners class had been advised that the class was on, but Siobhan and the other Open dancer had not. Perhaps we should have realised that there was a problem then!

Last Class

GM came to class as normal on Wednesday 13^th and as soon as he arrived he handed us a copy of the Midlands Regionals syllabus and suggested that we note the venue so that we could plan Siobhan's attendance. Whilst the girls were changing shoes we could overhear him asking Siobhan about her A levels, her job, and just generally chatting to the girls. This certainly does not fit in with his statement that he was so angry with them he nearly walked out of the lesson, that he made a few days later.

At the end of the class he was quite chatty with the 3 parents (including myself) and asked me for the fee for the GB's as he was about to finalise the entry. He suggested that Siobhan would benefit from extra classes and we arranged with him that Siobhan would travel down for his Bristol class on Saturday that week, and in the weeks leading up to the GB’s. The last thing he said as he left was that he'd call me on Friday to confirm the class start time. At that stage we thought everything was as normal and he was keen for her to attend the majors. Up until this date there was never any suggestion that there was a problem between the two girls and GM. He had not had cause to chastise either girl in class, and had never even hinted at there being a problem to the parents, despite the fact we saw him every week when we cleared the hall.

All Change

On the Friday he called me as he'd said he would, but rather than give a class time he said he'd decided he would no longer be able to teach Siobhan & the only other Open dancer in the class. This was a bit of a shock and obviously I tried to persuade him to reconsider, but he was definite about it. When pressed for a reason he said that they had struggled to change their style to the SEM style, and were difficult to teach. He also said that he had been really angry with them during several recent classes, particularly the one that week. Neither girl had mentioned it, and as I mentioned above, he certainly seemed to be in a normal mood after the class.

I advised him that the two girls would be shocked by the decision because they were unaware that he was unhappy, and asked him to at least discuss it with them. I also asked he give them a chance to put right the perceived problem, as it seemed unfair to punish them for something of which they were unaware. He agreed that he would reconsider over the weekend, and call me on the Monday. I then received an email to say he had decided that he was not prepared to give them a chance to put right something that at that stage they had been unaware was wrong. He also twisted some of the things said in our conversation as his justification. In our original telephone conversation he had led me to believe that he would "release her" (his words) and I asked him to confirm that this could be without a ban. His reply is that he would try to make it so if it was possible.

At this stage I approached Michael Stanley to see if he would allow us to move to his school (this was whilst under the misapprehension that GM would try to allow a ban free transfer as he had stated).  Michael said provisionally yes, but understandably wanted to confirm the situation with GM, which I encouraged him to do. I advised GM by email to expect his call, making it clear that I had not gone into the reasons for the move, merely stating that GM was no longer able to teach the Open girls as I felt that the issue was merely between us and GM.

The next day I got an email message from Michael saying he was not prepared to take her on, and it had been made clear to him that Siobhan would be banned. I therefore emailed GM to confirm the situation and received a very terse reply.

Meeting

Siobhan had by this time contacted the other Open dancer to see what she felt about the situation, only to find that GM had sent her a text to say that she was not to attend class, but nothing further. Siobhan filled her in on what had happened to her. As both girls were so shocked, and obviously desparately unhappy with this turn of events, we attended the next class on Wednesday 20^th in order for them to speak to GM and try to resolve the issue. I also wanted to collect the flooring that I had loaned to the class, which was being used when we arrived. Rather than cause any embarrassment we waited outside until the class had finished, and then went inside to speak in private. Apart from myself & GM the other persons present were Siobhan's mum, the other Open dancer, and her mum.

I have since received a letter from his solicitor that implies that the 5 people present at this meeting was some kind of lynch mob, rather than two young girls and their parents, and that GM had subsequently reported us to the Police for harrassment. Is one meeting harrassment I wonder?

The two girls did most of the talking, with some interjection from both mums, and occasionally myself. As you can imagine this was a difficult discussion on all sides with the girls becoming very distressed by the way they were being treated, and GM almost revelling in making them squirm. He certainly showed a side that we had not seen before. One of the reasons he put to them was that they expected to be able to have input into their steps, which is not how SEM work. However, he had encouraged their input in lessons over the last year, and had never said he didn't want them to do so. He accused Siobhan of being over confident (or arrogant) about her own dancing abilities and very spitefully stated that he had always detested her and people like her, because of it. I thought this was a bit surprising from an experienced dance teacher, as I always thought that self belief and confidence were a pre-requisite for a performer to be able to perform.

During our meeting GM was totally unwilling to even consider that he might have been a bit harsh, constantly stating he could do whatever he wanted with his school. which although perhaps technically correct I think most people would say morally not so. His attitude to the two girls at this meeting was outrageous. He knew what impact this was going to have on Siobhan in particular, and didn’t seem to care. In fact he seemed pleased. He seemed to revel in telling her he despised her and tried to verbally destroy both girls. He basically took the attitude that they had no right to even question his decision, and actually stated that it was their own fault if they didn’t realise that there had been a problem, even though he had never given any cause for them to think so.

His attitude towards the girls can only be described as vicious, and at one point he told Siobhan that he had despised her since they met. It does seem unlikely that he would have decided to teach her if it was true. He then said that she was just out to take from him, and having now got her medal wanted to know why was she looking to stay with him. Siobhan responded that "it wasn't good enough" which by the way it was said, and the context, we all knew she meant as "it was good but I was hoping that we can do better this year if we work together". GM tore her to shreds saying that was always her problem, nothing was ever good enough for her, and it was a case of "Me, Me, Me, Me"

“In the Gutter”

Siobhan reminded him that he had several arguments with a dancer in Bristol, who had also been treated badly. He had given her a second chance, and Siobhan asked why she and her friend were not being given the same. This dancer has since left SEM & GM then revelled in telling us all that she was now “in the Gutter where she belongs” a statement that was both unnecessary and shocking. I couldn’t believe that this was something a professional teacher would say about a young girl, particularly one who had been a pupil for years.

Previous schools

He then stated that it was their own fault as they had already been through two schools, the implication being that they were the cause of the previous school closure. Siobhan might be well known but I very much doubt that she has the power to close a school down on her own. In any event this was a total misrepresentation of the true situation, and one that GM was fully aware of. Those of you who know Siobhan will know that she started Irish dance with Eamonn Byrne. He then asked his close friend Karen McCamphill to join him as a partner. Siobhan stayed with them and 18 months or so later Eamonn decided to retire. Siobhan then stayed with Karen until she decided to stop teaching to concentrate on her family. So in essence she was only ever with the one school anyway.

Misleading statements

I reminded him that in our original telephone conversation he had led me to believe that he would "release her" (his words) and I asked him to confirm that this could be without a ban. His reply is that he would try to make it so. As he has closed the class for Open dancers by getting rid of the only two Open dancers I again suggested this might be grounds for a ban free transfer (although obviously dependant on the interpretation of rules). His response was that it wasn't up to us to close his classes and that he still had an Open class. (He has no Open dancers though, so I'm not sure I follow the logic) and that he had no intention of saying such a thing. In fact he has only a handful of beginners, and he and RE frequently state that they are not even ready for feis as they are nowhere near ready yet.

This led on to what he had said to Michael Stanley, as I was surprised that he was definite that Siobhan would suffer from a transfer ban. GM then decided to tell us, after virtually screaming “you couldn’t handle the truth” that the real reason that Michael had declined to take Siobhan was because he’d told GM that “half my school would walk out if she came to me” Obviously we were surprised by this, and he seemed to be pleased by this. (Early next morning I emailed Michael to ask if this was true and received a very civil response suggesting that it was not what he'd said.)

As we were getting nowhere we left.

The next day I heard a rumour that I had physically threatened GM during the meeting, which is blatantly untrue, and there are several witnesses to prove it. I emailed him to ask that he be cautious in what he said to others as they seemed to twisting what had been said. The solicitors letter implies that this was also a threat.

To sum up, Siobhan is now banned because GM has decided, for no obvious reason, not to teach her. She had never had any reason to think that he was considering such an action, and there has been no suggestion prior to this that she had behaved in a fashion that would make him do this. Nor has the other girl involved been given any such impression.

After being discussed at the next meeting my request was passed to An Coiste Faire for a ruling, and after debating the issue they have decided that Siobhan must be banned under the following An Coimisiun rule. They have not made any comment on the rights or wrongs of the situation, or given any feedback whatsoever.

3.1.10 Where a pupil is asked to leave a dancing school by the teacher, for whatever reason, that dancer will serve the 6 months restyling period with a new registered teacher, unless rule 3.1.6 applies (i.e. that the dancer is already out of dancing for one year)

Which basically means that Siobhan misses the Regionals, All Irelands, and Worlds. In addition it is now likely that other TCRG will also assume that she had done something to warrant his, and therefore be wary of allowing her to join them. On that basis she feels it is time to give up dancing as the Majors were her main focus for the year.

29th July 2007 Siobhan's fight for Justice......continued!

I have now moved all of the previous information about our progress in talking to An Coimisiun Le Rinci Gaelacha (CLRG) and the Midlands Regional council (MRC). This can be accessed here if required as background.

The following is an update on what has happened since my last reported contact on the 20th January 2007.

Having received Seamus O'Se's letter requesting I remove the Rulebook I responded by email, giving details of the Poll we conducted that was overwhwelmingly in favour of keeping them. He responded very civilly, and in great depth as to why he had made the request, and stated that it was a long term goal to make the info accessible.

At the same time I received confirmation from Carole Scanlon that my complaint was to be reviewed by CLRG at their next meeting. The outcome of this was quite a surprise, Seamus O'Se was to come to Birmingham for us all to meet to discuss the situation. It finally looked like we were getting somewhere!

Meeting

The meeting was arranged for 12.30 pm on 7th March 2007 and was held at Scanlons Club in Birmingham. Present were Mum and Dad, (Siobhan was not allowed) Seamus O'Se (CLRG), Carole Scanlon (MRC), Aidan Comerford (MRC), and Mary Kelly (An Coiste Faire). In addition Kevin McCarron (MRC) was present as note taker.

After exchanging pleasantries we stated our case about Siobhan, and also about what we perceive to be the unfairness of the rule in question. And the discussion began! Initially we felt that they were all on GM's side, but Seamus O'Se was keen from the outset to make it clear they were not going to just automatically support "one of their own". As the meeting progressed it became clear that all present had some sympathy, to varying degrees, to our situation.

For example, Aidan Comerford fully appreciated my argument that there should be a proper formalised appeal process in similar scenarios. I likened this to the process available through employment regulations, and he fully agreed that this protected both parties. Mary Kelly agreed that although it was a TCRG's own business and technically they could teach whoever they wanted, there was a moral obligation on the TCRG given the financial and time commitment they expect from the dancers.

During the discussion it became apparent that GM had not even responded to An Coiste Faire when they were considering my complaint when all this started. He had also "not been consulted" before our meeting, which I found very odd. It would seem a sensible course to get both sides of the story after all. After more than 3 hours the meeting drew to a close. The outcome was far from definite, but we had been given a chance to state our case, both about Siobhan and the more fundamental aspect of the Rules, and actually felt as if we had really been listened to. The next step was to be a meeting between everyone (except Mum and me) and GM, to put the matter to him. At this stage I was asked to refrain from making any comment on this website, and I happily agreed, hence the lack of updates..

Next step

The meeting with GM could not be arranged until after the Worlds,on the 25th April 2007. Of course this meant a 6/7 week wait before anything was going to happen, which given how busy everyone would be, we fully appreciated. However, on the 20th April 2007 I received an email from Carole Scanlon stating that GM was unable to attend, and that they would be re-arranging the meeting. I was surprised and annoyed at this because as far as I could see, he had been given at least 6 weeks notice.

I responded quite strongly to this (see here) as I felt that this should not have been allowed. The next day I received another email from Carole which advised me that Seamus O'Se was going to raise the matter at the next meeting of Buanchoiste in Dublin which was to take place the following weekend. On the 2nd May I tried chasing up the outcome and Carole advised she hadn't heard back from Seamus as of that time. She also advised that she would be away for a week or so, and that this might cause a delay in response.

As I hadn't heard anything by the 15th May I emailed again (see here), copying in Seamus. This email was a formal request to bring matters to a prompt resolution, although it was civil, and polite. I failed to get any response so I then emailed on the 20th May with a deadline to respond (see here). I received a terse response from Seamus as he had perceived the content of my email as a threat (not my intention at all). He further stated he would not continue the process under such a threat, despite the fact that he felt the matters we had discussed needed some resolution.

Communication

This of course highlights the importance of effective communication. It had been my perception that nothing was being done, and I had been merely trying to get a response. My email had not been meant as a threat, just purely as a means of advising him of the fact I would not simply sit and wait forever. I therefore emailed him again to explain my thought process more fully (see here)

Just after this I received an email from Carole stating that both she and Aidan felt that the matter was really out of their hands, as it was being dealt with by CLRG, but that they were both keen to see some resolution too. I then heard nothing so on the 7th June 2007 I emailed Carole again, as it seemed that I at least got a response whenever I did so. (see here) In this email I simply made it clear that there was a definite lack of response as far as I could see, and that I thought it best for everyone that the matter should be finally dealt with. Her response was that both Aidan and herself agreed that this was a fair comment, and that she would chase Seamus to see what was going on.

Finally we draw near

Again I heard nothing so sent another email (see here) to Seamus on the 17th June 2007, effectively saying that as far as I could see the matter was at an end, despite there being no conclusion. I was surprised to receive a very courteous response which made it clear that much had been going on behind the scenes in order to bring closure. The outcome of this was that another meeting with GM had been arranged for the 27th June 2007.

Unfortunately I then received another email on the 26th June 2007 saying that GM wasn't going to attend. This was despite the fact that Seamus, Carole, Aidan & Mary had all made arrangements to be available. It is highly possible that he was genuinely unable to attend, but it doesn't appear as if he suggested an alternative date to meet, either before or since. The email then suggested that the earliest possible date for another meeting would not be until September 2007, which would mean a full year since we first started this process. Obviously I am not happy at this and I emailed all parties to advise them of how I felt, and also that I would now let the Irish dance in on what's been happening, by posting this info online. The email is below, and it is likely to be the last communication for some while, although I hope the process will continue. I sincerely hope that the meeting in September will take place, and thereafter a a subsequent final meeting to close of the matter.

To his credit, although not passing comment on what I've said, Seamus did not see my intent to publish as a threat this time, and it therefore appears that we now have a clearer understanding of each others position.

Summary

I think it is important to make it clear that in the beginning my perceptions of the powers that be were very similar to most parents. I always felt that I would get nowhere, and that CLRG and MRC would simply back their friends and colleagues against any parent. Throughout this process I have retained that belief, in part due to the low level of communication.

However, recent events, and the responses from all parties concerned, have shown that my initial perceptions were flawed. It is clear that CLRG & MRC are taking my complaint very seriously, and not simply dismissing me as an angry parent. Indeed, the main issue appears to be that the organisation relies upon its members complying with what is asked of them, but that they have no process to deal with those who don't. Because of this it is possible for certain TCRG to abuse the rules to their own ends, and CLRG can do little to prevent this.

However, from the experiences we have had I am now hopeful that we will reach a conclusion in the end, and one that might suit us all. I am also certain that CLRG will continue to listen, and over time may review its Rules, Codes of Conduct, and Grievance procedures. As with any large body it will take time, but the motivation is there, and being openly demonstrated by many senior representatives.

27th May 2007

For those who are wondering why there has not been a News update please note that there are dicussions being held and I have agreed not to post anything further until they are completed. This should be very soon.

20th January 2007 - something is happening!

As I had not heard anything I emailed the MRC (copying in CLRG) again, but this time following a different course. I decided to ask for information about all of the discussions they have had, under the provisions of the Data protection Act, and also requested information about the legal status of the MRC. (see here for copy). - I also wrote a similar request to CLRG (see here). Both of these requests were made 20th December 2006.

I had 2 rather odd responses, one from Ms Scanlon (23/12 - see here), the other from CLRG. (21/12 - see here).

1. Ms Scanlon was offended by my request for some reason. I think it was misunderstood, so I then apologised to her and explained the true purpose of my request. (see here) She also states that I have been sent a letter
   On the 4th January I contacted Ms Scanlon as I had not received the letter she mentions.
2. The CLRG reply came direct from Seamus O'Se, the Chairman of CLRG, which was a bit of a surprise. He effectively says that I have no right to ask for such information. (I assume he is unaware of the Irish freedom of Information Act) I responded to this, with a more detailed response. (see here).

I received no further response and so on the 11th January 2007 I contacted Aidan Comerford, (copying the email to Ms Scanlon & Seamus O'Se at CLRG), to make a more formal request under the Data Protection Act. (see here). On the 19th January I received an email from Carole Scanlon confirming my request has been discussed and forwarded to CLRG in Dublin for further discussion. (This was also copied to Aidan Comerford and Seamus O'Se).

Important note - I should mention here that I have been advised that Mr Comerford was out of the country for most of December, and this could certainly partially explain the lack of response, although someone could have replied to advise me that this was the case.

Although I have had no further response from Mr O'Se since the 21st December I did receive a letter to my home address from him dated 12th January. This was the day after my email to Aidan Comerford (to which Mr O'Se was copied) requesting information. The letter requested that I remove the copy of the Rulebook (see here for copy of the letter). Hopefully this was just a coincidence.

Breaking Rules
However, mentioning the Rulebook reminds me of another matter raised with MRC to which I have not had a response, so I hope this will be part of the response I receive.

1. Unqualified dancers teaching
   In my initial complaint about Siobhan being banned I also highlighted the fact that on many occasions RE of SEM has used unqualified dancers to teach classes in her absence. These were not emergency cover, but regular occurrences. This is in breach of the rules, which can be accessed via the Rulebook link above, but for simplicity I reproduce below

3.3.1 A registered teacher must attend and teach his/her class on a regular basis.
3.3.2 Unregistered teachers/pupils may only teach in such classes in the presence of the registered teacher
3.3.4 Dancers/pupils who teach independently, or in contravention of this decision, are not entitled to compete at registered\par competitions, which include Regional and National Oireachtaisí, as well as Oireachtas Rince na Cruinne.

N.B. The following points should clarify the situation:
(a) There is no rule of An Coimisiún which permits a registered teacher to attend a class on a monthly basis and have someone else teach the class on his or her behalf between such intermittent attendances by the registered teacher

2. Class Insurance
   I noticed in the rules that all Schools MUST provide Dancers Insurance. This puzzled me as SEM ask every dancers parents to sign a registration form which says they do NOT Provide such insurance. I am surprised if they don't, and wonder if it might said just be to deter people from trying to claim against them. I therefore made formal notification to MRC, (see here for a copy of the email) copying in CLRG, as to this possible breach of the rule, or at least going against the meaning of the rule - rule below.

3.5 Class Insurance

When registering a class (school) with An Coimisiún, from the year 1999-2000 onwards, teachers are required to produce evidence that their classes are covered for Public Liability Insurance.

The form that SEM use can be accessed via the following weblink http://www.seaneireannmcmahon.co.uk/acrobatfiles/Regform.pdf
I have also placed a copy of the open webpage on this site, just in case it gets removed. Click here to see a copy

I now await a response from MRC & CLRG on all of the above

From the outset the biggest issue I have had with my daughters situation was simply trying to understand WHY?
(For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about I have re-posted the info Click here for the background story)

Why did GM expel Siobhan from SEM?
Why was it so sudden?
Why did he leave it so late in the year?
Why was there no apparent reason?
Why would An Coimisiun allow a top dancer to be excluded from the Worlds, through no fault of their own?

I believe the answer presented itself at the Midlands Regionals when a dancer in Siobhan's age group, who had retired from SEM two years ago, suddenly returned to take a place at the Regionals. In fact we met her about a year ago at a class in Bristol when she told us she wanted to return but couldn't commit to the Team dances, and therefore had been refused a return to classes. I assume that GM sudden change of heart about Siobhan coincided with her return to the school, and presumably she is now able to dance in the teams. Siobhan simply became surplus to requirements. I might seem paranoid for saying this, but several people have also made the same comment to me. Despite being angry at this turn of events I decided to contact the MRC again with a view to asking them to reconsider in light of this. (See here for a copy of the email I sent to them 2/12/06)

As this situation has been ongoing for 3 months I felt that a 2 week deadline was appropriate. I received confirmation (4/12/06) from Ms Scanlon that my email would be presented at a meeting of the MRC on the 5th December. I have heard nothing since, despite requesting an update on the 9th. On the 16th December I contacted the MRC again, copying my email to Aidan Comerford and the office of CLRG in Dublin, requesting an immediate update. (Copy here) I have again not heard anything. I can only assume that they have decided to simply ignore me in the hope that I will go away. However, I will now step up my campaign against a rule that is almost certainly not legally enforceable and is inherently unfair.

This is not due to any external pressure. Although the report was factually correct the reaction to what was said was ridiculous. Although many people understood that I was trying to make a valid point about the fact that a ban was unfair in such circumstances, and the vast majority were supportive of that idea, there were a group of people who used this as an opportunity to launch vicious personal attacks on both myself and my family. The bulk of these attacks occurred on the UK Irish dance Voy forum and were posted by people stating that they were representing the views of everyone at SEM. I find this unlikely as I know that both teachers would not condone such behaviour as it gives the school a bad name.

During the vociferous debate on Voy the point of my statement was lost, so yesterday morning I requested that the Moderator remove ALL posts. This they did as soon as was practical, but I understand that there then followed several attempts to start threads again, with the Moderator being personally attacked. Several postings accused them of being biased against SEM, and there were also accusations that we are one and the same person. As the Moderator has no connection with any of this, and has always run a well moderated forum, I thought it best to kill the discussion and simply restate my motivation as follows.

Totally unexpectedly, and without any provocation whatsoever, Gordon McMahon announced that he will no longer teach Siobhan and the only other Open dancer in his classes in the Milton Keynes area. When pressed he clearly states that he is impressed with the standard of Siobhan’s dancing and the level of work & commitment she brings to class, so he does not have issue with this. However, he now refuses to teach her, meaning she is banned from the Worlds 2007

I then posted the background to her story from the day she joined SEM in the hope that by giving a blow by blow account of her time with SEM some people will see past their preconceived notion of the way the two TC behave and understand that perhaps this particular situation was as unfair as I say. All I asked is that the reader should try to keep an open mind, and perhaps if this happens to another dancer you will be more inclined to believe them.

If I had just said she was banned without reason, everyone would assume that this was untrue and that the TC had good cause. After all who would believe that one of the top dancers in her age group would be dropped without cause? I know, as I've reacted the same when I've heard similar stories about other dancers.

I have written to An Coimisiun with an idea as to the introduction of a proper disciplinary code that both protects the dancer, and the teacher from this sort of situation arising. A copy of this is available on the link below. An Coimisiun have confirmed receipt, and I will keep you posted on any developments.

An Open Letter to the members of An Coimisiun Le Rince Gaelacha

Dear Carole   I have received your letter on behalf of the MRC giving the result of our appeal against the ban, and am very disappointed in its contents. For An Coiste Faire to simply quote a rule, which I already knew of and is in fact the rule that we were appealing against, would suggest that they had not considered our case at all. At the very least it would seem reasonable to expect a more detailed response outlining their deliberation of the individual circumstances, and their reasons for discounting these in favour of strict application of the rules.   It is my understanding than An Coiste Faire are tasked with ensuring "fair play" within Irish dance, and that An Coimisiun believe that "Natural Justice" should prevail over the actual rules. I therefore gave a full factual account as to how unfairly Siobhan had been treated. I resisted the urge to embellish this account with my personal thoughts as to why these events transpired, as that could have seemed like the rantings of a paranoid parent, and clouded the issue. In addition it would be easy for Mr McMahon to simply deny any interpretation by myself as I have no way to prove his thought processes, or private discussions that he may have had with anyone else.   I was asked permission to allow Mr McMahon to read my submission, which I was happy to give. This seemed fair as he must obviously be given an opportunity to challenge what I had said. I was therefore surprised that I was not afforded the same courtesy in that I was not given access to his response, and therefore no opportunity to dispute anything he may have stated incorrectly.

Part of the reason for challenging this in the first place was that one of the problems we had as a family was simply understanding WHY, and we hoped that this would be revealed by this process. The following questions needed an answer before anything could be decided: Why did he expel Siobhan? Why what it so sudden?
Why leave it so late in the year? Why was there no apparent reason? Why would An Coimisiun allow a top dancer to be excluded from the Worlds, through no fault of their own?   Presumably whatever was said in his defence by Mr McMahon led An Coiste Faire to believe he had acted justly.   However, the result of the Under 18 age group at the Oireachtas could suggest the real reason behind the sudden expulsion of Siobhan. For clarity these are below

Under 18 Results - Girls 
    1 Ciara Sexton - Turley Academy, Coventry
    2 Jenna Casey - Stanley-Carroll, Peterborough
    3 Zoe Hancox - Sean Eireann McMahon, Midlands
    4 Marianna Ryan - Masterson, Cambridge
    5 Emma Andrews - Kenny, Birmingham  

I do not wish to criticise the girl in 3rd, (Zoe Hancox) as she is a very nice young lady, that Siobhan has known and liked for many years, and she is also a beautiful dancer. However, it seems odd that despite having had several conversations with Mr. McMahon about Zoe over the last year there has never been any mention that she had returned to the school. As she wasn't at classes last time we travelled to Bristol I assume she has only recently returned. Obviously she has a long standing relationship with both TCRG at SEM and is more local to them, so it appears Siobhan simply became surplus to requirements. That being so then I suggest that Natural Justice dictates that the imposition of the rule is inherently unfair.

I can only assume that Mr McMahon had not advised MRC or An Coiste Faire of this particular change of circumstance as if he had I am sure their decision would have been different. If I was being paranoid I could argue that by being economical with the truth he has manipulated the members of both bodies to ensure that Siobhan is not able to compete against Zoe, thereby removing some of her competition. You should remember that even someone suffering from paranoia can still see when someone is acting against them.  

I therefore request that you re-assess the situation and allow Siobhan to dance. It is now nearly three months since this happened so I must ask that this be resolved as soon as possible.

I believe that I have been more patient than the situation deserves already, but now need to move this forward quickly. I would therefore expect your immediate confirmation that you will look at this matter again, and a final outcome within 14 days of this email. After that date I will look at what steps I need to take.   It has not been my intention at any time to cause public issues within MRC, or CLRG, but I will do whatever I have to in order to achieve fair treatment of my daughter, and to ensure that this cannot happen to a dancer in the future. I have received a lot of personal support from people whose own daughters have suffered from similar treatment, not just with SEM I might add, and it appears that CLRG needs to take stock of how rules are being exploited by some TCRG to penalise dancers.

It is my understanding that there have already been successful legal challenges against this ban, and have been advised that given our specific case history it is likely to be declared unenforceable by an English Court of law. Obviously I would prefer to avoid the delays that such a process would create, and also the disruption that would inevitably occur within the Midlands Region. In addition I know such a course would probably destroy any chance of her actually dancing, as it would be a brave TC who would take her on afterwards. My main concern from the start was simply that she has been deprived of her Irish Dancing, for no genuine reason. Her passion for Irish dance is unquestionable, her commitment to 15/20 hours practice per week shows that. Siobhan is half Irish and since she was a child has embraced Ireland and its culture totally. Dance was a big part of this at it was encouraged by her Grandmother who sadly s no longer with us. She is a different person now that this has been taken away, and I would never forgive myself as her father if I didn't do everything possible to restore that for her. Even if I eventually fail she will at least know that her parents supported her totally. This is particularly important after several of the people from SEM launched personal attacks on her as a person on the web last week. I am sure that this behaviour was not endorsed by the TCRG from the school.  

I look forward to your prompt response   Sláinte!
 
Darren Amos - Irish Dancer Webmaster
www.irish-dancer.co.uk - info for Irish Dancers everywhere!

Dear Carole,   I have not yet received any formal response to the above from the MRC, except for your confirmation on the 4th December that it would be presented at the Council meeting the next day. Presumably there was some decision made at that time, and I expected that this would be immediately conveyed back to me. I would ask that the Midlands Regional council now do so.   Whatever the result of my complaint to the MRC as a governing body, it would be reasonable to expect that I receive a professional response outlining both the decision, the reasons for it, and any actions that the MRC intend to take as a result of that decision.  

The original result of my appeal to An Coiste Faire was seriously devoid of such information, but it is in fact the responsibility of the MRC to do this as my complaint was made to them.

As this matter has already been an issue for over 3 months I believe I was being reasonable in my email of the 2nd in asking for a FULL formal response within 14 days. This reasonable deadline formally expires today. However, I am prepared to postpone any action on my part if, and only if, I receive some kind of a response from you within 24 hours. I will accept a response that confirms that the MRC will make a FULL reply within a very short, but reasonable time period, with some explanation as to why this has not already happened.

I have so far endeavoured to be open and honest with you, and expected the same in return. You know the reasons for my complaint. You also know that subsequently I have suspicions as to why this occurred, namely the return to Sean Eireann McMahon of Zoe Hancox. This dancer is obviously more acceptable to Mr McMahon & Mrs Ellis, and is in the same age group as Siobhan. She is also a previous member of the teams. (In fact she nearly returned last year, but advised us that she couldn't commit to the teams at the time and because of this Mrs Ellis refused to let her return)   I am not the only person who believes that Mr McMahon has ruined my daughters dancing career so that he could replace her with Zoe. Within minutes of the results becoming known I had several emails from people within the UK, but also Ireland & America, all saying basically "now we understand why". I have even heard from other dancers in the age group, so I would expect that several members of the MRC must have also suddenly seen the light that this was a probable cause.  

An Coimisiun, the Regional Councils, and many ADCRG and TCRG are perceived badly by the people that are actually involved in the dancing (dancers and TCRG). There is a common belief that the people in authority care little about what happens to dancers, and that you simply close ranks in the event of this sort of issue. Most of the time a dancer and their family simply walk away, and nothing changes. I cannot believe that every member of our governing body is like that as you all got involved with Irish dancing as dancers and must remember what it meant to you. However, the truth is that for evil to triumph all it takes is for good men (and women) to simply do nothing.

It is time that you were seen to apply a level of fairness to the rules, and show everyone that you are impartial and will protect dancers from being punished by teachers or the system simply because they clash with their TCRG. Whatever Mr McMahon might have said about my daughter or her parents you should remember that she was with the same TCRG for the first 7/8 years of her career and only stopped because he retired. He is still a close friend of all of us, hardly in keeping with the Dancer or Parents from HELL Obviously he was a Southern Region TCRG so will not be known too well by many of you.

I look forward to your immediate response
Sláinte!
 
Darren Amos - Irish Dancer Webmaster
www.irish-dancer.co.uk - info for Irish Dancers everywhere

Wednesday 20th December 2006  

Dear Carole  

as Secretary I understand that you are only able to follow the instructions from the council, and as such will not ask you to make any further comment. However I am disappointed that I have not had a response to my previous correspondence, and I must therefore now follow a different course.   please forward, either by email or by post to the address below, the following information:

• The Legal status of Midlands Regional Council as a body. (e.g. charity, society, Limited Company etc.)
• Where it is registered as such
• Where is its official registered address.

Please provide the same information for An Coimisiun Le Rince Gaelacha if you have it. (I will be making a similar request direct to them as well)   In addition I would ask that you also forward the minutes of the several meetings at which my complaint has been discussed, with any supporting documentation arising from those discussions, including emails and letters between council members. Please ensure that the persons present at those meetings are listed. Obviously I would expect for you to delete from those minutes any other business discussed that is not related. You will no doubt understand that this is my right under the Data Protection Act, which now extends to any documentation whether held electronically or manually, and that within 10 days you must confirm that you will collate this information. Further it must be forwarded to me within 40 days of the original request.   I look forward to your prompt response
Sláinte!
 
Darren Amos - Irish Dancer Webmaster
www.irish-dancer.co.uk - info for Irish Dancers everywhere!

Hello Darren

I have responded to your recent letter.  However this was not via E-mail but in the form of a letter which has been sent to you throught the post.   I find your E-mail to me quite offensive.  You are not in a position to tell me personally what I must or must not do.   Your E-mail will be presented at the next MRC meeting which is (provisionally) at the end of January.    And in the meantime, like the rest of my colleagues, no further correspondence will be made during the Holiday period.    I will

Dear Carole

my apologies for offending you, it was honestly not intended, indeed nothing could be farther from the truth.. I was actually trying to make it clear that I have no personal issue with you, and did not expect you to debate anything with me yourself. Obviously I failed miserably. Please be assured that I am nothing but appreciative for the way in which you have personally handled my correspondence   I have as yet not received your written response and was therefore unaware that it existed, so my apologies for also jumping the gun in that area.  

my apologies, and may I wish you a  Merry Christmas   Darren

Hi Maire   Further to my email to the Midlands Regional Council   please forward, either by email or by post to the address below, the following information:

• The Legal status of An Coimisiun Le Rince Gaelacha as a body. (e.g. charity, society, Limited Company etc.)
• Where it is registered as such
• Where is its official registered address.

I have requested certain data from the Midlands Regional council. I would ask your assistance in ensuring that they forward this to me.   I look forward to your prompt response
Sláinte!
 
Darren Amos - Irish Dancer Webmaster
www.irish-dancer.co.uk - info for Irish Dancers everywhere!

Hello Darren

 I am not sure under what provision we have to provide you with this information.  Neither do i know under what provision the Midland Regional Council are obliged to provide their private information either.  An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha is engaged in major restructuring at the present time.  Teachers registered with An Coimisiún have been informed of the position, and they will be notified when the process is complete.  No other person is entitled to such information, except at the discretion of An Coimisiún.

 Séamus Ó Se, Cathaoirleach.

Dear Seamus   Thank you for a very prompt response, it is much appreciated.   you are correct, as I have not cited any provision under which you are obliged to forward this information. Indeed I am not even sure that there is such an obligation, unless you are a Limited company or registered charity. However, I was hoping that you would provide the information simply as there would seem little reason not to. The reason I require this particular information is that dependent upon the legal entity will define the process that I must follow to discuss certain matters with you, and obviously defines whether the Freedom of Information act applies. The Midlands Regional council are a slightly different issue as their are two parts to my request, and the supplementary information that I have requested is in fact covered under the data protection act and they are obliged to at least provide me with copies of any information that they hold about me, whether I know of its existence or not. Obviously I would prefer not to invoke legal proceedings to enforce this aspect if its avoidable at this stage.   I am not sure whether you have been made aware of the background to this request, but briefly my daughter and another girl, have been made subject to the transfer ban. I say ban because that is indeed what it is in this instance, as it is effectively a punishment. Gordon McMahon TCRG suddenly announced that he was no longer going to teach them, without any particular reason, and no prior suggestion that he had any problem with Siobhan or the other girl. This occurred only 2 days after their last lesson, at which he had asked for entry fees to the Great Britains, and had been discussing Siobhans entry to the Regional Oireachtas, neither of these actions would suggest he intended expelling them.. You can understand that when he did so 2 days later it therefore came as a total surprise, leaving the two girls in shock. At the time their was no obvious reason for such a sudden change of heart on his part, although we now know that a previous favourite at the school in the same age group, who had retired,  has recently returned (and came 3rd at the Regionals). It suggests that this might be the reason, my daughter being ousted as no longer required for the solos, particularly as she was unable to commit to the teams due to working commitments.   However whatever the reason it seems unfair that she should be banned, and therefore punished, simply because Mr McMahon has decided her face doesn't fit, and not because she (or her parents) had done anything untoward. My daughter was 10th at the last Oireachtas Rince Na Cruinne and was hoping to do even better this year. She had discussed this with Mr McMahon and deferred her University place so that she could focus on that goal. This has been taken away by the strict application of a rule that I am certain An Coimisiun never intended to be used to penalise a dancer who has done nothing wrong.   I have asked for your assistance in encouraging MRC to co-operate as they seem to be just ignoring me. We are expected to be bound by a set of rules, but have no recourse if they are unfairly applied, and I find that baffling from an organisation the size of CLRG who are keen to be seen as a professional body..   Please help my daughter in any way that you are able to   kind regards
Sláinte!
 
Darren Amos - Irish Dancer Webmaster
www.irish-dancer.co.uk - info for Irish Dancers everywhere

Dear Mr Comerford,  

further to my previous email to Ms Carole Scanlon, dated 20th December 2007, requesting that you forward certain information I am disappointed that you have failed to respond.   The information relating to the legal entity was simply required in order that any further correspondence could be sent, in the correct form and to the correct official on the Midlands Regional Council of An Coimisiun Le Rince Gaelacha in England. I am surprised that you feel that as a regulatory body you have a legal right to ignore such a request. However, I shall simply make this request formally to you as the Chairman of this body.   My second request related to information about myself and the complaint that I have made to the Council. This too seems to have been ignored, despite my reminding you of my rights to this information under the Data Protection Act. I assume you misunderstood, and did not realise that this was a formal request.   The following is therefore a formal request.

I wish to make an access request under the Data Protection Act of 16th July 1998 and for a copy of any information you keep about me, on computer or in manual form. 

You should note that your liability to comply extends to include any comments or personal opinions expressed about this matter either in writing, or verbally (and minuted)during the various meetings that have taken place. For clarity I reproduce the relevant article

Part 1 - 1.1 ........and includes any expression of opinion about the individual and any indication of the intentions of the data controller or any other person in respect of the individual;

Note that under section 7 - c(ii) this includes the source of the information

I trust that you will now comply with your legal obligation, and that I need not make formal representation to the Data Protection Commissioner

I look forward to your response
Sláinte!
 
Darren Amos - Irish Dancer Webmaster
www.irish-dancer.co.uk - info for Irish Dancers everywhere

Dear Sirs  

I feel that I ought to bring the following to your attention.  under the An Coimisiun rules I understand that a TCRG must have class insurance (rule 3.5 below).

3.5 Class Insurance

When registering a class (school) with An Coimisiún, from the year 1999-2000 onwards, teachers are required to produce evidence that their classes are covered for Public Liability Insurance.

However, the teachers at Sean Eireann McMahon Academy get every dancers parents to sign a registration form that clearly states that they do not have any insurance, and that the individuals should make their own arrangements. (I can provide a copy of this if required)   Is this not a breach of your rules? If so, I am surprised as I presume it should also be as rigidly applied as the transfer ban rules. I am surprised that no-one has noticed as it says evidence must be produced to CLRG.   Apart from that, isn't it just unethical? It leaves children exposed to unnecessary risk and I believe that every parent should be made aware of the implications as quickly as possible, as I am sure you would agree.
Sláinte!
 
Darren Amos - Irish Dancer Webmaster
www.irish-dancer.co.uk - info for Irish Dancers everywhere!

Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:32:52 +0100

Dear Carole
You will appreciate that I am very disappointed by this.   We met in March, and I appreciated that with the Worlds approaching fast the matter was to be put to one side for a while. I have tried to remain reasonable, despite the fact that my daughter did miss the Worlds, which might have been avoided if my complaint had been dealt with sooner. Frankly I am surprised, under the circumstances, that Mr McMahon has now been given the option to cancel. It is a Grievance procedure, and in any other walk of life attendance would be compulsory, even in voluntary organisations. Surely it is not too much to ask that Mr McMahon be encouraged to attend? He has had plenty of notice to attend this meeting, but it appears that he is being allowed to behave as he did with Siobhan, and do just as he wants to.
I do now expect a prompt closure to this matter as my daughter doesn't dance any more, and I have little personal reason to remain involved in Irish dancing, but I will not just give up and walk away. I am a man of strong principles, and believe that the issues raised need to be resolved. On a personal level, I expect that CLRG/MRC will agree that in Siobhan's case she was treated poorly by SEM, and punished unreasonably under the rules as a result. If Mr McMahon does not see fit to challenge what we have said, even though he has had ample opportunity to do so over the 7 months that this has been discussed, I suggest that this could justifiably support our case. Or is it that he just believes that no matter what is said he will be found to be in the right, and that he therefore doesn't need to bother?
I now request that you, or Mr McMahon, make a public apology to Siobhan, making it clear that she was not in any way at fault for her dismissal from the school. Currently there are people who believe she did something to deserve it, as it is hard for them to believe that a TCRG would destroy a dancer at the peak of their career for no reason. In addition I feel that an apology that the subsequent delays in appealing the matter meant that she missed the Worlds is also in order.
Finally, I would also like to see some confirmation, either to myself, but preferably through your own website, that CLRG are looking to implement a process that precludes future such events, much as we discussed. If other dancers and teachers can benefit by being protected in similar circumstances in the future, that will at least mean something good has come out of this situation.
I will await your response but if it looks likely that you will not meet with Mr McMahon within the next 14 days I would ask that you make your final decisions and advise accordingly. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.  
kind regards   Darren

hi Carole

it is now 2 months since our meeting, and a full 8 months since this situation first arose. If Siobhan had transferred then her ban would have been over by now, so i am sure that you would agree that it is now time for resolution?   I'm sure that you will appreciate that I have done all that I can to co-operate with you thus far.
As requested I have refrained from any comment on my site pending the outcome of our meeting. I do still want to resolve matters reasonably, in a way that benefits Siobhan, MRC/CLRG, and in the long term, Irish Dancers in general. However, I do not want to just sit and wait forever for a response, before deciding what I am to do next.  
I would really appreciate a very prompt response to finally resolve matters one way or the other. In addition I would prefer that Mr McMahon not be allowed to pursue any further delaying strategies, before you respond  
I look forward to hearing from you, or the other interested parties, forthwith

Dear all  

Further to my previous email dated 15/5/07 I respectfully request that you both acknowledge its receipt and respond to its contents by 5.00pm Wednesday 23rd May 2007.  
Should I fail to hear from you I shall have no choice but to cancel the informal agreement between us without further recourse to yourselves, and take any further action that I feel will lead to the rresolution that I seek.  
I hope that this will not become necessary, and look forwars to hearing from you   kind regards
 

Dear Seamus  
If you read what I said as a threat then I apologise. However I do feel that matters are dragging on, and I do have to consider other options if I feel that In am getting nowhere. As I can only perceive what is happening by remote, based upon your response, or rather lack of response, I believe it is a sensible and fair approach to both seek some kind of deadline, and appraise you of my intentions before simply taking action which could be unnecessary.
I fully appreciate that you made a major effort to meet with us in March, which to clarify was actually 11 weeks ago. I was not aware of, nor had any expectation, that you intended to meet again. My undersanding was simply that Mr McMahon would be meeting with you and that based upon that you would reach your final conclusions. Since then I have seen that he has been allowed to miss the meeting, and not make an alternative appointment. It would seem that no date will suit him, yet I assume that the MRC have met several times since this first arose and he could easily have given his side of the story. This follows the fact that he made no effort to assist Mary Kelly and An Coiste faire in their original deliberations, so it appears to me that he is the only person involved that is making no effort to resolve this issue.  
You are correct that our meeting was not really a formal appeal against the ban, as by then it was too late. However, my original contact regarding this matter was exactly that. We were indeed looking to appeal, on the basis that the rule used to penalise Siobhan was inherently unfair in the circumstances, and therefore the ban was inappropriate. I still want to see a ruling on this as if it was relevant, because an admission from CLRG that rule 3.1.10 was applied unfairly in this instance, means that future appeals are possible for other dancers, and that an automatic ban can be possibly avoided dependant upon circumstance.  
Again I call on you to bring this matter to a conclusion by ensuring that Mr McMahon is made to respond promptly. As he has a senior position on the regional council it is inappropriate behaviour on his part to stall any longer. f this was another school instead of SEM he would be pushing them for resolution, as he was fond of telling us.
I look forward to hearing from you again very soon

Dear Carole,  
I will make one final plea to resolve this issue amicably.
I feel that there is no initiative from CLRG unless I badger them through you, and we are now coming up to 9 months without resolution. It seems that this stalling is just in the hope that I will just go away. Mr O'Se reacted quite positively when I suggested that CLRG would just side with the TCRG automatically, making it clear that he wanted to be unbiased. However, when I tried to bring things to a close he reacted as if I was threatening and stated he would not deal with me under those circumstances. It seems I can either wait forever, and nothing will happen, or I can challenge and CLRG will refuse to deal. Either way I am getting nowhere.
My perception of the situation may be incorrect, but as I am reliant upon commmunication from CLRG, which is not forthcoming unless I prompt it each time, it is hard to draw any other conclusion from the situation. I will therefore make it clear where I stand.  
I am not prepared to wait any longer to move this matter forwards in some way. However, if there is evidence that there is now a definite & reasonable timeframe to a final resolution I am prepared to allow the process to run its course. In order for that to be so some simple questions need to be answered.

• When is the meeting with Mr McMahon scheduled for?
• How this will proceed if yet again he is "unable" to attend?
• When will I be given a final resolution?

I hope that this email is not taken as being threatening, but it should be taken as final & decisive, as you will understand that I will not accept any further delays in the process   Thanks for your assistance throughout, whatever the outcome, it has been appreciated and restored my faith that MRC might actually listen to those other than its own members.  
kind regards   Darren

Dear seamus,

correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear that you have decided to break contact with me. That being the case I feel that I must inform you that I hereby recind my former verbal agreement with you not to publish any information about our ongoing discussions until thay were finalised, as they now appear to be so.

I am disappointed as I had hoped that the result of our previous meeting, which initially seemed to be very promising, would be recognition for Siobhan that she was wronged by an abuse of an unintentially unjust set of rules by a senior member of An Coimisiun Le Rinci Gaelacha. This would have absolved Siobhan of any blame within the wider Irish dance community.

Following on from that recognition I was keen to see that this would have resulted in an improvement to the rule book, and behavioural code/grievance procedures, to remove the possibility of similar occurrences in the future. The positive feedback from all persons present at our meeting, including yourself, seemed to support that outcome as being a real possibility.It is my hope that, despite my failure on a personal level, this will perhaps remain a topic for consideration, and that this area will be addressed in the future, for the benefit of schools and dancers everywhere.

On a personal note I must say that the matter has closed in just the fashion I had assumed it would from the outset, with the closing of ranks to support a TCRG, whether they behaved improperly or not. For a brief while following our discussions, I had hoped that I had been wrong, and that the messages I had received from other TCRG suggesting that An Coimisiun wouldn't do that, would indeed prove to be correct. It now seems that I, was suffering from false hope, and I am resigned to the fact that sadly my original beliefs have been proven to be true.

I would again like to extend my thanks to you for making the effort initially to travel to meet in Birmingham, and particularly to Aidan, Carole and Mary who have been helpful & courteous throughout, despite the fact that I may have worded some of my contacts inadvertently forcefully.
Sláinte!

Dear Seamus

you obviously will expect that I will be disappointed and angry that this has happened, which of course I am.

No doubt you and your colleagues from the MRC also feel similarly.

I can't say that I am surprised as this only serves to confirm what I already knew about the manner in which Gordon McMahon and Rose Ellis behave, and that the blame for my previous inaccurate perceptions about what was happening lies firmly at Mr McMahons door.

I appreciate the efforts that you have made thus far, and your offer of continuing to do so as soon as you are able. However, I very much doubt that Mr McMahon will bother to attend any other meetings arranged, given that he has failed to turn up to 2 already. Whilst he may well have given what seem to be valid reasons not to have done so, there have been 13 other weeks between these dates that he could have made himself available to you. Quite frankly I am appalled that he has been allowed to decide not to attend either of the two pre-arranged meetings with the Chairman of his own governing body. It is irrelevant that it is a voluntary organisation. Not only is he a member, but a Senior figure within the organisation. He should be setting the standards by which the other members are expected to adhere.

It would seem that Aidan, Carole, Mary and yourself are all prepared to make an effort to resolve what is a serious issue, but that Mr McMahon doesn't seem to feel under any obligation to do so. It is my understanding that he did not even have the courtesy to advise everyone of his non-attendance despite being aware that you all had to make special arrangements in your "normal" lives to accommodate the meeting. It is clear to me, and presumably to you all as well, that he holds you and his colleagues on the Regional Council in contempt, and that he has no respect for any of you at all.

When you consider that the roots of An Coimisiun stem from a body of huge influence and importance historically, it is inconceivable that Mr McMahon can be allowed to behave in this way. I find it hard to believe that Conradh na Gaeilge would arrange a meeting with one of its own members to discuss a serious matter, and not expect them to attend. Maybe the member could reschedule once, but certainly not twice, and especially without the courtesy of reasonable notice being given. How can An Coimisiun appear to be so toothless with its members when its rules are applied quite rigidly where they affect the actual dancers? Obviously Mr McMahon feels that he can just keep missing meetings until you and I give up trying, and in the meantime he continues to waste the time and energy of 4 senior colleagues. 

Unfortunately I do find it unacceptable to wait until September, although I fully accept this is a serious offer on your part, and under the circumstances a reasonable one. However, it will have been a full year since this process started, and if Siobhan had wanted to dance again she could do so ban-free anyway by then. As the purpose of our discussions were in part to gain acceptance that the ban was not appropriate, and to have it officially rescinded so that she could dance at the Worlds (too late) or immediately without a ban, it now seems a pointless exercise to continue to discuss it in September.

However, I would still be keen to discuss further the possible rule amendments in order to avoid such a situation in the future. In addition I still feel it is important that Mr McMahon be brought to task over this whole issue, and that Siobhan be officially and publicly absolved of any wrongdoing so that any future plans she may have are not affected, whether it be dancing, or teaching. To that end I would hope that the meetings still take place.

In the meantime I think it is time that I updated the information on my site to reflect the events since we began our serious discussions. I believe that although matters are still unresolved it may do us both some good to shed light on the fact that CLRG/MRC have been willing to discuss the situation openly and with an open mind. It has certainly improved my perception of those bodies, and by revealing that this process has taken place may enhance the reputation of both sides, excluding Mr McMahon I'm afraid.

kind regards

Darren