Garda Apology

Stop moaning ffs

Ionabots everywhere!

They haven’t gone away Yknow

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Come off of it, what possible agency did this woman enjoy when we know the forces that were pitted against her on the threat of losing her job?

I'd have some sympathy for your point of view if we were having this discussion in 1984, then we could at least admit you were a man of your time. But you're trying to peddle this line in 2019, knowing what we know.

As far as I can discern, you're trying to say this woman shouldn't have had sex in the circumstances she was in, and the rules and culture of the time were just that; so she should have known better. Well, gold medal for you Captain Hindsight.

And what's more, you're slyly suggesting the Garda hierarchy at the time had no agency at the time themselves, they simply had to apply the opaque rules of 'discrediting the force' the way they did.

Newflash from 1985, this was a matter of controversy and debate back then too...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/intolerable-intrusion-the-1985-coverage-of-majella-moynihan-s-story-1.3928248

easy there now ted

lets conservatively (ironic lol) say that its two dozen times on this thread that someone has - correctly- made the distinction between agreeing with the times that were in it and acknowledging that they were nevertheless the times that were in it.

I'll thank you for the simple courtesy of not suggesting again that i (or the majority of people you're scolding in this thread) are stating that this was a sequence of events we would agree with now or are looking back on approvingly. to continue to do so is simply no more than soapboxing from you and im so not here for it.

the agency is set out numerous times. you have set it out, in the bare facts yourself, above. if we take it all as simply and as presented, it was job or child and she chose job. im sick enough saying its not an easy decision and ill stop making these sops to subtlety now seeing as you are still addressing me as if im commissioner x from 1980. my posts in the thread are clear without consistently needing to be saved from your bald misrepresentation.

you havent once acknowledged that these were known terms and conditions of employment. of society, in a broader sense.

"as far as you can discern" - you can take a long walk if this is your level. i take no position on sex, extramarital sex, unprotected extramarital sex in the society thats in it and if you could see your way to withdrawing your snide remark id appreciate it and be pleasantly surprised.

if i were to take a position on unprotected extramarital sex in her circumstances at the time id say it was ****ing risky and risks arent called risks because all the outcomes are mighty craic. youll ignore that point we can be sure.

the only reference i can be said to have made to the agency of anyone representing the force in 1984 is a post earlier in the thread where i believe i doubted the capacity of many to again use a bit of subtlety of thought to make a distinction between personal morals and a role acting in a non-discretionary manner.

do i wish they had done differently, yep surely i do (and sick enough having to say it as a performance for you and the other one), do i suspect they could have done differently, yep probably i do (with a probable cost to themselves, perhaps, at whatever level of the chain they were at), do i think it likely, in 1984, in the circumstances we have already set out ad nauseum that anyone with an ounce of cop-on would expect them to do so nine times out of ten? I don't.

the performatively outraged handwringing will chap your skin. if you must do it, dont wail at me while doing it please.

One eyed Jack

Yurt! wrote: »

Garda rules aren't the law. Crack open a book and get that into your head.

I didn’t say they were?

Garda Moynihan as she was at the time knew the rules of AGS which applied to her as a member of AGS.

Everyone else knew the law which applied to them as members of the public.

My point was that being educated in an industrial school offers no explanation or excuse as to why Garda Moynihan was of the opinion that she was above the rules of the organisation of which she was a member.

Of course it was going to be humiliating when it was pointed out to her by her superior officers that she isn’t above the rules, in spite of her protestations that they “leave her alone”.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

Could we cope with the horror of what would come out !

I see where you're coming from but I still think we'd be a much better society for having the courage to examine our history like that. Much better. I am always impressed at the honesty which the Germans have had about WWII and their museums are thoroughly admirable in their courage about this past. It's not as if the poor in other European societies did not endure local variants of what the Irish poor endured - although there is certainly a much greater emphasis on social history in France, for instance, than there is in Ireland, where our very conservative historians infamously merely aped the English historical research culture which focuses on the history of the political elite and their wars. Historical research in Ireland is still suffering from this emphasis.

And you can be sure that after 10 or 20 years of research into the social histories of these homes etc, we will also have more balance, hearing stories of good things which were done by good people in those years and have a better understanding of how Ireland compared internationally. It all beats some eejit with an affected accent musing about some esoteric letter written by some waffler in 1932/1832/1732 that has already been examiner by other like-minded people - and being paid by the state to do so. Then again, that's a lovely, safe history for the state to spend its research funding on.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

easy there now ted

you havent once acknowledged that these were known terms and conditions of employment. of society, in a broader sense.

I wont even bother dealing with the rest of the post because it's an exercise in you trying to un-knot yourself.

At this point however, is where you really fall down.

Employers are entitled to set conditions of employment but they must above all be lawful conditions. Example: if you are in retail and a condition of your employment is that you wear a tie, that's a perfectly lawful condition and you can't complain if you don't wear it and get your p45.

Can AGS use an opaque provision such as 'bringing the force into disrepute' to censure a Gard who got pregnant out of wedlock? It wasn't litigated at the time, but if it entered a judge's courtroom, then and now it would probably fall under being unlawful.

AGS can put what it wants in it's rulebook, the law doesn't care what date is on the calendar, it doesn't care about conditions of society or what's being written in the Irish Press, it doesn't even care about what kind of mustache the Commissioner was sporting - if it's unlawful, it's unlawful.

Yurt2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say they were?

Garda Moynihan as she was at the time knew the rules of AGS which applied to her as a member of AGS.

Everyone else knew the law which applied to them as members of the public.

My point was that being educated in an industrial school offers no explanation or excuse as to why Garda Moynihan was of the opinion that she was above the rules of the organisation of which she was a member.

Of course it was going to be humiliating when it was pointed out to her by her superior officers that she isn’t above the rules, in spite of her protestations that they “leave her alone”.

Rules, be they set by AGS or your local Spar, must adhere to the law. You suggested she wasn't adhering to the law. It's in your post.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but I still think we'd be a much better society for having the courage to examine our history like that. Much better. I am always impressed at the honesty which the Germans have had about WWII and their museums are thoroughly admirable in their courage about this past. It's not as if the poor in other European societies did not endure local variants of what the Irish poor endured - although there is certainly a much greater emphasis on social history in France, for instance, than there is in Ireland, where our very conservative historians infamously merely aped the English historical research culture which focuses on the history of the political elite and their wars. Historical research in Ireland is still suffering from this emphasis.

And you can be sure that after 10 or 20 years of research into the social histories of these homes etc, we will also have more balance, hearing stories of good things which were done by good people in those years and have a better understanding of how Ireland compared internationally. It all beats some eejit with an affected accent musing about some esoteric letter written by some waffler in 1932/1832/1732 that has already been examiner by other like-minded people - and being paid by the state to do so. Then again, that's a lovely, safe history for the state to spend its research funding on.

Look at the reaction to this controversy and the amount of people blaming MM for this scenario. It’s not the states fault or the gardais. It’s her fault.

I agree we should examine and expose all of our history and address it warts and all. But even a short read through here will show you the type of people presumably from that era, certainly their thinking is, and how they would react to it.

Judging by this article, she’ll have the children’s home and the maternity hospital in her sights next! https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ex-garda-they-no-longer-have-a-hold-over-me-today-im-free-931293.html

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

I wont even bother dealing with the rest of the post

eyeroll.jpg

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

eyeroll.jpg

Yeah it was a mess pal.

What was notable in it tough was that you appear to believe that AGS can concoct 'rules' as they see fit, apply them as they see fit, that they are discrete from the legal order, and that the unwritten codes and mores of society override enumerated rights.

One eyed Jack

Yurt! wrote: »

Rules, be they set by AGS or your local Spar, must adhere to the law. You suggested she wasn't adhering to the law. It's in your post.

I didn’t suggest she wasn’t adhering to the law and it’s not in my post either. In your post you considered that the fact she was educated in an industrial school is somehow relevant to the fact that she was found to be in violation of the rules of the organisation of which she was a member at the time.

She was found to be in violation of the rules as set down by S.I. No. 316/1971 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1971 -

1. Conduct prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the Force.


It was perfectly lawful then, and it’s perfectly lawful now. That’s why when she contacted Michael Noonan about it, she was told correctly, that it was nothing to do with him as the Minister for Justice at the time -


Separately, Ms Lohan called on former Fine Gael leader Michael Noonan, who was Minister for Justice at the time, to state what he knew about the case.

Ms Moynihan said on Monday that she spoke with Mr Noonan ten years ago, and he told her that it was an internal Garda matter. Mr Noonan did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.


Her circumstances would be similar to Paddy Jackson claiming he was mistreated by his employer for having sex. We know that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. Similarly, Garda Moynihan in this case was not fired following informal disciplinary action, and she subsequently chose to remain with AGS for a number of years after until she chose to leave of her own volition, so attempting to portray herself as a victim, is a stretch.

I do worry about her though that if she isn’t satisfied this time with the outcome of all the media attention this time around, that she’ll run out of other people to blame for her circumstances.

marieholmfan

This was 35 years ago. This is not news.
We can only fix the problems that exist today.

Yurt2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t suggest she wasn’t adhering to the law and it’s not in my post either. In your post you considered that the fact she was educated in an industrial school is somehow relevant to the fact that she was found to be in violation of the rules of the organisation of which she was a member at the time.

She was found to be in violation of the rules as set down by S.I. No. 316/1971 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1971 -

1. Conduct prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the Force.


It was perfectly lawful then, and it’s perfectly lawful now. That’s why when she contacted Michael Noonan about it, she was told correctly, that it was nothing to do with him as the Minister for Justice at the time -


Separately, Ms Lohan called on former Fine Gael leader Michael Noonan, who was Minister for Justice at the time, to state what he knew about the case.

Ms Moynihan said on Monday that she spoke with Mr Noonan ten years ago, and he told her that it was an internal Garda matter. Mr Noonan did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.


Her circumstances would be similar to Paddy Jackson claiming he was mistreated by his employer for having sex. We know that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. Similarly, Garda Moynihan in this case was not fired following informal disciplinary action, and she subsequently chose to remain with AGS for a number of years after until she chose to leave of her own volition, so attempting to portray herself as a victim, is a stretch.

I do worry about her though that if she isn’t satisfied this time with the outcome of all the media attention this time around, that she’ll run out of other people to blame for her circumstances.

Take a wee read through that and point out the provision in the law where it deals with pregnancy. In your own time...

Stop moaning ffs

marieholmfan wrote: »

This was 35 years ago. This is not news.
We can only fix the problems that exist today.

It’s that kind of thinking that we still have and why horrors like the Tuam seeer grave aren’t investigated officially when they really should be.

We can’t just ignore these things they have to be looked into with all the seriousness they deserve.

Jupiter Mulligan

Banned.

Jupiter Mulligan

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

I could deem you a nasty piece of work, but that would be too generous.

Yurt2

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

But, as with her decision to have unprotected sex with a fellow trainee garda, her decision not have a termination, her decision not to marry the man who fathered their child, her decision not to keep her child and her decision not to not leave AGS, it's entirely up to her.

You really are a piece of work.

I'm out of this thread - I've better things to be doing with life than engaging with sociopaths online.

F#cking hell.

SusieBlue

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

But, as with her decision to have unprotected sex with a fellow trainee garda, her decision not have a termination, her decision not to marry the man who fathered their child, her decision not to keep her child and her decision not to not leave AGS, it's entirely up to her.

Yes because abortion was freely available, accepted and regulated in Ireland in the 1980's in Ireland. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're holding her to the standard of options she'd have had today, that's an unfair comparison and very disingenuous.

RobbieMD

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

That’s particularly low. If you’re an adult you should be ashamed of yourself. Anyone feeling suicidal should seek help.

I’m glad we live in a time now when having sex or a child outside of wedlock isn’t punishable.

One eyed Jack

Yurt! wrote: »

Take a wee read through that and point out the provision in the law where it deals with pregnancy. In your own time...

What?

What sort of whataboutery is that? I didn’t say anything in my post about any provision in law where it deals with pregnancy.

Did you read my post properly? I was addressing the point you made in which you tried to imply that disciplinary action within the AGS at the time was somehow unlawful in your opinion. My point is that contrary to your belief - her being subject to disciplinary action for her actions was not unlawful.

marieholmfan

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s that kind of thinking that we still have and why horrors like the Tuam seeer grave aren’t investigated officially when they really should be.

We can’t just ignore these things they have to be looked into with all the seriousness they deserve.

But not as news stories.
There is a fine balance between facing the past and pretending to speak truth to power by facing down those who are already beaten.

Where was RTE in 1984?

Yurt2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What?

What sort of whataboutery is that? I didn’t say anything in my post about any provision in law where it deals with pregnancy.

Did you read my post properly? I was addressing the point you made in which you tried to imply that disciplinary action within the AGS at the time was somehow unlawful in your opinion. My point is that contrary to your belief - her being subject to disciplinary action for her actions was not unlawful.

*Sigh*

Of course AGS are empowered to discpline. But they must discipline LAWFULLY and with good reason in accordance with law.

Last post on this thread. Enjoy fantasy land

One eyed Jack

Yurt! wrote: »

*Sigh*

Of course AGS are empowered to discpline. But they must discipline LAWFULLY and with good reason in accordance with law.

Last post on this thread. Enjoy fantasy land

Yeah, I’m still not seeing your point tbh. They acted lawfully and with good reason according to the rules of their own organisation in accordance with the law as it was at the time. Nowadays, it could constitute discrimination if Garda Moynihan had been treated differently on the basis that she was pregnant. It still doesn’t absolve her of any disciplinary action for violating the rules of the organisation of which she was a member. You appear to be ignoring the context in which you’re attempting to make the point that she was somehow treated unfairly by the organisation.

That seems to be her point too, and she doesn’t have much of a point either IMO.

Nermal

SusieBlue wrote: »

You're holding her to the standard of options she'd have had today, that's an unfair comparison and very disingenuous.

You're holding institutional actions of 35 years ago to the standards of today.

Grayson

Nermal wrote: »

You're holding institutional actions of 35 years ago to the standards of today.

That's fair though. Like I said before the state has apologised for doing thing in the past that were acceptable then but aren't now. Many states have actually.

SusieBlue

Nermal wrote: »

You're holding institutional actions of 35 years ago to the standards of today.

I'm not, I'm saying that stating she had the option of contraception (which was extremely difficult to get in the early 80's) and abortion (which was only legalised last year, over 30 years after the fact) is extremely disingenuous.

Stop moaning ffs

She could well have been fired and arrested for having an abortion.
It was specifically not an option as evidenced by the Bishops comments at the meeting he was somehow involved in.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not, I'm saying that stating she had the option of contraception (which was extremely difficult to get in the early 80's) and abortion (which was only legalised last year, over 30 years after the fact) is extremely disingenuous.

Contraceptives were as difficult to get in the 80’s as any drugs are difficult to get today. That is to say - not very difficult at all, and certainly not difficult for a member of AGS. According to her own sworn testimony at her disciplinary hearing -

Sworn testimony of bangharda Moynihan taken on 30th April 1985


Question - Did you become pregnant deliberately?

Answer - Why should someone want to become pregnant deliberately?

Question - Did you want to hold on to [NAME REDACTED]while you were in Templemore?

Answer - Well, I liked him

Question - Did you have a physical relationship with him in Dublin before he joined the guards?

Answer - Yes

Question - Were contraceptives used?

Answer - Yes

Question - Was there a question of contraceptives not being used?

Answer - Not that I can recall

Question - Did you not feel that you would become pregnant as a result of having sexual relations with [NAME REDACTED]?

Answer - He used contraceptives

Question - How did this pregnancy occur if contraceptives were used?

Answer - He did not use them the night I got pregnant

Question - Was that at your suggestion?

Answer - No

Bold emphasis my own. The issue wasn’t that contraception was unavailable to them. The issue was that it wasn’t used.

Sephiroth_dude

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

But, as with her decision to have unprotected sex with a fellow trainee garda, her decision not have a termination, her decision not to marry the man who fathered their child, her decision not to keep her child and her decision not to not leave AGS, it's entirely up to her.

Mod

Do not post in this thread again.

eagle eye

SusieBlue wrote:

You're holding her to the standard of options she'd have had today, that's an unfair comparison and very disingenuous.

But if you don't want to hold her to standards of today why do you want to hold others to today's standards? Is that not unfair to them?

Scoundrel

Ten of Swords wrote: »

The garda commissioner from 1984 is dead now

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/obituary-larry-wren-34534992.html

The minister for Justice of the time isn't in fact he's still a drain on the public resources as a TD today...

branie2

I listened to some of the documentary on YouTube, and I have to say it's very good so far

Edgware

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not, I'm saying that stating she had the option of contraception (which was extremely difficult to get in the early 80's) and abortion (which was only legalised last year, over 30 years after the fact) is extremely disingenuous.

If stationed in Dublin contraception was readily available in certain clinics but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the treatment she received.
The interference by Garda authorities in her personal life, the use of antiquated catch all regulations probably inherited from Victoriana police rules and the complete lack of support.
Her options of raising the child herself was very limited in the absence of family and employer support were limited and adoption was a realistic option.
But having agreed reluctantly to adoption Garda management then decided to discipline her.
Who made that decision? Probably some old geezer reared in 1930s who did not realise that the times had changed.

expectationlost

should the manguard have been disciplined? [i know he was] will he get an apology?

One eyed Jack

expectationlost wrote: »

should the manguard have been disciplined will he get an apology?

He was also disciplined, and in just the same way as I don’t think Majella Moynihan is entitled to an apology from anyone, I don’t see why he should be entitled to an apology either.

He hasn’t demanded an apology though so it’s a moot point really.

skooterblue2

Yurt! wrote: »

Garda rules aren't the law.

They were she she was investigated and they were there when that young recruit was dismissed last year for staring in a Porno. Remember RoboCop for excessive use of the baton at the G8 summit in Dublin? .......
You can be dismissed from the Defense Forces or the Garda Training just like that. I know of two such cases and both trainees were happy to exit but no details were divulged.

Mod

Banned.

Wanderer2010

I feel sorry for this woman and her situation but there is just something not sitting right with me about her media statements. There is a small whiff of narcissism and an enjoyment of the limelight about her. Just the way she burst into tears the moment the camera was on her, seemed very staged.

She also said she tried to commit suicide 5 times. a very specific number of times. Not to put too fine a point on it but hundreds of people in this country manage to kill themselves the first time, never mind five so im sensing some attention seeking from her that way. Like Sinead O Connor- addicted to the worlds reaction to her being a victim, rather than proactively helping herself.

One eyed Jack

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I feel sorry for this woman and her situation but there is just something not sitting right with me about her media statements. There is a small whiff of narcissism and an enjoyment of the limelight about her. Just the way she burst into tears the moment the camera was on her, seemed very staged.

There’s no doubt the whole episode has been orchestrated and finely honed to engender public support, but I don’t imagine it’s being conducted by Majella Moynihan herself. I actually do think she is a vulnerable person being used as a political pawn by other people who are taking advantage of her circumstances to further their agenda, and she will be discarded and abandoned when she is no longer useful for their purposes. That’s why I suggested earlier that I worry about her that she won’t have the outcome she wants from courting the attention of the public this time around either.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

She also said she tried to commit suicide 5 times. a very specific number of times. Not to put too fine a point on it but hundreds of people in this country manage to kill themselves the first time, never mind five so im sensing some attention seeking from her that way. Like Sinead O Connor- addicted to the worlds reaction to her being a victim, rather than proactively helping herself.

It’s understandable that you would be given to thinking that, and it’s not uncommon to think that way either. But statistically speaking, it isn’t supported by evidence of people who have repeatedly attempted suicide -

APA president and study coauthor Maria Oquendo, MD, said one of the things that has "been very problematic in psychiatric practice is this notion that if the person were serious, they would have killed themselves already. But it's important to consider that in the United States, many people make suicide attempts by overdose, and emergency response systems and hospitals are very good at intervening and reversing the situation."

But the situation in many other countries is quite different. For instance, said Dr Oquendo, in China, many people use pesticides as a method of suicide, and almost all of them always die, not only because the pesticides are extremely lethal but also because the individuals often do not receive any kind of care, Dr Oquendo noted.

She believes physicians need to "readjust their view of the multiple suicide attempter as someone who is just trying to get attention. One of the things I tell my students is, you really shouldn't use the term 'suicide gesture' because it trivializes the behavior of that individual, and if you can help get them through their rough patch, you might just save a life," Dr Oquendo said.

Multiple Suicide Attempts a Marker for Impaired Functionality


Ms. Moynihan has said though that she has received counselling. I would hope for her mental health she would continue to be monitored and supervised.

Bobtheman

Deleted User wrote: »

Contraception was available in the early 80’s.
She rejected the fathers marriage proposal.

Why all the fuss now?

I was 15 at the time. Was it really that available?

Wanderer2010

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no doubt the whole episode has been orchestrated and finely honed to engender public support, but I don’t imagine it’s being conducted by Majella Moynihan herself. I actually do think she is a vulnerable person being used as a political pawn by other people who are taking advantage of her circumstances to further their agenda, and she will be discarded and abandoned when she is no longer useful for their purposes. That’s why I suggested earlier that I worry about her that she won’t have the outcome she wants from courting the attention of the public this time around either.





It’s understandable that you would be given to thinking that, and it’s not uncommon to think that way either. But statistically speaking, it isn’t supported by evidence of people who have repeatedly attempted suicide -

APA president and study coauthor Maria Oquendo, MD, said one of the things that has "been very problematic in psychiatric practice is this notion that if the person were serious, they would have killed themselves already. But it's important to consider that in the United States, many people make suicide attempts by overdose, and emergency response systems and hospitals are very good at intervening and reversing the situation."

But the situation in many other countries is quite different. For instance, said Dr Oquendo, in China, many people use pesticides as a method of suicide, and almost all of them always die, not only because the pesticides are extremely lethal but also because the individuals often do not receive any kind of care, Dr Oquendo noted.

She believes physicians need to "readjust their view of the multiple suicide attempter as someone who is just trying to get attention. One of the things I tell my students is, you really shouldn't use the term 'suicide gesture' because it trivializes the behavior of that individual, and if you can help get them through their rough patch, you might just save a life," Dr Oquendo said.

Multiple Suicide Attempts a Marker for Impaired Functionality


Ms. Moynihan has said though that she has received counselling. I would hope for her mental health she would continue to be monitored and supervised.

I accept your point about repeated attempts of suicide being successfully reversed, given the advances of medical care of late and of course, responding fast is critical. But I think it was unwise of her to reveal the number of times she tried, as its inevitably going to be met with "How come you try 5 times when hundreds do it on the first go?", whether you think that view is harsh or not.

Attention seeking for narcissistic reasons is not new- classic case being Sinead o Connor telling anyone who cares (not many by this stage) about the latest developments in her suicidal life, always, ALWAYS within view of a camera or radio interview, the woman is addicted to being a victim and never turns down a chance to spread her life over the airwaves or social media. Now people like that definitely put genuine people who are suffering further back in their efforts to get help.

Edgware

Bobtheman wrote: »

I was 15 at the time. Was it really that available?

Not outside big centres of population. It would be
difficult for a teenager to source but for a police officer in Dublin it would be easy

Mrsmum

Edgware wrote: »

Not outside big centres of population. It would be
difficult for a teenager to source but for a police officer in Dublin it would be easy

The pill was often prescribed to stop periods for women/girls who suffered dreadful period pain, bad enough that it required them to have to take days off school/college/work every month so some girls would have got it either genuinely for that or pretending to their doctor it was for that.

One eyed Jack

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Now people like that definitely put genuine people who are suffering further back in their efforts to get help.

I’ve no doubt some people are influenced by witnessing that kind of behaviour, and I genuinely do understand where you’re coming from. I don’t imagine that just because it influences me in the opposite direction, it has the same effect on everyone, and that’s why I’d say to you that it’s simply impossible to determine who is or isn’t genuine, who’s only saying it to get attention and who is a genuine threat to themselves or others.

There is obviously a serious issue of crying wolf, but there’s also the serious issue of disregarding someone who may genuinely be experiencing distress. To be honest with you, I don’t think it’s anyones business but my own. You don’t want to know how many times I’ve tried to take my own life, and nobody else needs to know (I’m one of those archaic God bothery types, and that narrative doesn’t play well with modern social justice types, which as far as I’m concerned is a good thing as they don’t bother me :pac:), but when someone else threatens or even implies that they will take their own life unless they get what they want, they lose any sympathy or respect I had for them.

Ms. Moynihan in this case while she has said that she has in the past tried to take her own life, I don’t think she meant it as a threat that she would take her own life if she didn’t get the outcome she wants now. I do worry though that if she doesn’t get the outcome she wants, she will quite literally just give up. At the same time I still wouldn’t hold anyone else responsible for that outcome either.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

The pill was often prescribed to stop periods for women/girls who suffered dreadful period pain, bad enough that it required them to have to take days off school/college/work every month so some girls would have got it either genuinely for that or pretending to their doctor it was for that.

It’s amazing how many girls had troublesome periods back then!

Mrsmum

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s amazing how many girls had troublesome periods back then!

LOL

Actually I know a girl who genuinely went to the doctor for the pill because her period was due during her foreign summer holiday. Well you know yourself last thing you want is a period while you're flashing your teeny weeny bikini. She got it too and I can vouch that she was a very good girl in Santa Ponsa as I was there too.

Bobtheman

I do not believe she is entitled to compensation because no law was broken at the time. None
Was it right what happened to her ? No
But was it illegal-No
We'd have thousands of women looking for compo. The state ain't a bottomless well of revenue to right historical wrongs.

Edgware

Legally it would be difficult for her to make a case that would succeed. The regulations while not law were regulations in tge same way that the military have regulations thathave to be followed. The fact that in many peoples eyes now they were applied as a catchall would not rule out their use.
I presume those regulations are still in place and while wouldnt be used as they were against Majella could be used in some other situation where Garda management thought necessary to discipline someone

1641

Edgware wrote: »

....... The regulations while not law were regulations in tge same way that the military have regulations thathave to be followed. The fact that in many peoples eyes now they were applied as a catchall would not rule out their use.
I presume those regulations are still in place and while wouldnt be used as they were against Majella could be used in some other situation where Garda management thought necessary to discipline someone[/QUOTE]


As in this scenario? -



https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/garda-sex-video-patrol-car-14232223

One eyed Jack

Edgware wrote: »

Legally it would be difficult for her to make a case that would succeed. The regulations while not law were regulations in tge same way that the military have regulations thathave to be followed. The fact that in many peoples eyes now they were applied as a catchall would not rule out their use.
I presume those regulations are still in place and while wouldnt be used as they were against Majella could be used in some other situation where Garda management thought necessary to discipline someone

What do you mean “in many people’s eyes now they were applied as a catchall”? That’s exactly what they are - a set of regulations governing Garda discipline and behaviour as members of AGS. As members of AGS they’re held to higher standards than the general public, and that includes what they may perceive to be their private life.

The simple fact of the matter is that anything they do in what they imagine is their private life which reflects badly on the organisation can lead to disciplinary action against them. It’s no different than the catchall terms included in many employment contracts regarding employees responsibilities and their conduct as employees of an organisation.

Yes of course they are still in place and can be used where Garda management deem it necessary to discipline a member of the force for contravening the regulations which are listed in the schedule here -


S.I. No. 316/1971 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1971.

Updated in 2007 -


S.I. No. 214/2007 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007


Your last post about the application of the regulations was so wide of the mark I wasn’t even sure where to begin, so I didn’t. All of that notwithstanding, as part of the regulations there is also an appeals process which Ms. Moynihan could have availed of at the time, but I can only assume for her own reasons she chose not to help herself. She could still pursue legal action against AGS if she wanted, but again she may still remain unsatisfied with the outcome.

Yurt2

At the risk of repeating myself, of course, AGS are empowered to discipline. Where in the schedule does it state that AGS are empowered to discipline a member if they fall pregnant? If they have red hair? If they listen German techno-funk in their spare time? All discipline in AGS must be LAWFUL and is subject to legal challenge, then and now.

You're peddling a line that AGS can discipline for any reason they see fit and they are not subject to challenge from other legal statutes.