Garda Apology

Mrsmum

There was a retired teacher on Liveline during the week and she was saying that there was a thing called 'offending against faith and morals' for teachers. Her actual point was that was what the writer John McGahern was let go from a school in Clontarf for. That he offended against faith and morals by marrying not in a church I think. Seems bizarre now. But in those times teachers and guards were put on a pedestal. Being given such respect was a pro for choosing those jobs but the con was you really had to live up to that respect. Single motherhood on the other hand had zero respect so imo that was Majella's problem. She wanted both, the respect of being a member of AGS and the child outside marriage in times when that was never going to happen.

One eyed Jack

Yurt! wrote: »

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.

You’re peddling the line that I said any of those things, when I didn’t. By all means feel free to repeat yourself, and by all means continue to misrepresent the facts of this case in the same way as posters tried to misrepresent the facts in the threads about the cases where Paddy Jackson and George Hook were disciplined by their employers as though they were unlawfully dismissed or treated unfairly by their employers. Those posters didn’t have any more of a point then than any point you don’t have now in this case.

But don’t let that stop you.

Grayson

Mrsmum wrote: »

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.

Years ago in the 80's when I was a kid I helped the sisters of charity with a thing they were doing. I knew some people who were closely associated with it so I ended up at a friends house doing this one night. What had happened was a load of pharmacies had donated extra or expiring stock of drugs they had. They were going to be sent to Romania or Belarus or somewhere like that. So we had a bin bag full of blister packs and bottles of pills.
We had to sort them out according to what they did. So antibiotics went in one pile, anti inflammatories in another etc. We had a book with all the drugs name in it and just looked up what they did and threw them in the correct pile.
There was a small pile of contraceptive pills. They threw them all into the bin. It was pointed out to them that the pill has more than one use and can be used by girls who had bad period pains for example. but the people organising the whole thing decided that it was too much of a risk and no-one should be taking those pills.

That's the kind of country we live in back then. Those people weren't radical or holier than most people. They were just average people.

Edgware

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

The "catchall" as far as I can see was a means of control. If they couldnt get you on a specific offence of discipline they would stick you with the " bringing discredit" charge
This was based on some Garda managers opinion that the Garda behaved in a way that the public thought wasnt " proper" behaviour for a Garda.
This opinion of course would be influenced by the standards of the Garda officer and what he thought should be rather than was common practice.
The Appeals process was not required as the charges were withdrawn as far as I know.
In any case the appeal would have been heard before other senior Garda officers so good luck with that.

1641

Grayson wrote: »

Years ago in the 80's when I was a kid I helped the sisters of charity with a thing they were doing....


There was a small pile of contraceptive pills. They threw them all into the bin. It was pointed out to them that the pill has more than one use and can be used by girls who had bad period pains for example. but the people organising the whole thing decided that it was too much of a risk and no-one should be taking those pills.

That's the kind of country we live in back then. Those people weren't radical or holier than most people. They were just average people.

Somewhat surprised that the Sisters of Charity didn't organise an exorcism!

One eyed Jack

Edgware wrote: »

The "catchall" as far as I can see was a means of control. If they couldnt get you on a specific offence of discipline they would stick you with the " bringing discredit" charge
This was based on some Garda managers opinion that the Garda behaved in a way that the public thought wasnt " proper" behaviour for a Garda.
This opinion of course would be influenced by the standards of the Garda officer and what he thought should be rather than was common practice.
The Appeals process was not required as the charges were withdrawn as far as I know.
In any case the appeal would have been heard before other senior Garda officers so good luck with that.

Well of course it’s a means of control, to sanction members of AGS who bring discredit on the force. The charge of bringing discredit on the force is a specific charge of discipline, so it’s not as though they were trying to “get” Garda Moynihan on anything or single her out for discriminatory treatment that they wouldn’t have applied to any other member of the force whose conduct had been deemed to be likely to discredit AGS.

There were other examples at the time of members of AGS who were treated no differently to Garda Moynihan (as she was at the time), so the idea that she was treated unfairly is a non-starter. You’re right that the charges against her were eventually dropped, but there’s no way of knowing how an appeal would have gone anyway given that her superior officers gave her glowing references, and her sworn testimony is contrary to the account she gave afterwards, which would present something of a credibility issue for her in any future hearing of an appeal.

It’s quite well covered in this article -

Transcript of the RTÉ Majella Moynihan documentary

Edgware

That's that sorted.
What about the Spanish students on the bus Joe!
It's a disgrace

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They were mostly concerned with what their families, friends and neighbours would think of them.

And WHY would their families, friends or neighbours think badly of them if they were having sex or getting pregnant? Because the church was telling them what to think, and these people were stupid enough to listen to 'celibate' men in dresses pontificating on sex. Some rejected these notions, but most did not.

Even in her own story she gave an account of a nun in her time in an industrial school who was one of the kindest people she’d known.

She also said that nun left and after that things went very badly for her for the rest of her time in that place, so not all the nuns treated her well.

She wasn’t treated any more unfairly than anyone else in her circumstances.

Unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.

As if every other garda who was not either a virgin or an exclusively faithful spouse was disciplined.

Her "crime" was to produce proof of her "indiscretion" - by having a baby.

But even then, she was treated much more unfairly than other unmarried female gardai at the time who were allowed keep both their baby and their job.

She was continually pressurised by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers. Then she was charged, interrogated in detail about her private life, and almost sacked.

Not to metion that the male party to this "crime" was merely fined, and not threatened with the sack.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She chose to reject the father of the child, yet still wants to maintain she was a victim because he didn’t give her the support she wanted from him.

He offered to marry her, but when she refused (she says she had never intended to marry him, and remember, no divorce then - and it says a lot about him that he asked her father before he mentioned the idea of marriage to her) he didn't offer any financial or emotional support whatsoever and basically told her to f*** off, not giving a damn about his own child never mind her.

I suppose you're going to blame her for his being such an irresponsible callous cnut, too...

Hotblack Desiato

Mrsmum wrote: »

There was a retired teacher on Liveline during the week and she was saying that there was a thing called 'offending against faith and morals' for teachers. Her actual point was that was what the writer John McGahern was let go from a school in Clontarf for.

They still can do that.
Religious bodies (e.g. 96% of primary schools) can no longer sack on the basis of sexual orientation, but they still can on the basis of "upholding the ethos" i.e. not being catholic enough (or, not pretending hard enough to be catholic)

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And WHY would their families, friends or neighbours think badly of them if they were having sex or getting pregnant? Because the church was telling them what to think, and these people were stupid enough to listen to 'celibate' men in dresses pontificating on sex. Some rejected these notions, but most did not.

Feckall to do with what “celibate” men were telling anyone at the time HD, sure 10 years earlier we’d already had a referendum to remove the recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church - passed by an overwhelming majority of 84% of the electorate.

No, it had everything to do with people having notions about class, and their position in their communities and in society. We see the same today in spite of the lack of influence of the Church. Religious morality was a convenient excuse at the time for people to disguise their disdain for people they regarded themselves as “better than”. Nowadays without the influence of the Church, people still have notions about themselves, only nowadays people don’t feel any need to disguise their notions - they straight out make claims that because they’re a taxpayer they’re better than someone else. See the recent example that was made of Margaret Cash in the media and on here, and then come back and you can feel free to lecture me as though Irish society was somehow different 35 years ago from what it is today - people still generally condemn people they regard as being irresponsible.

Unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.

As if every other garda who was not either a virgin or an exclusively faithful spouse was disciplined.

Her "crime" was to produce proof of her "indiscretion" - by having a baby.

But even then, she was treated much more unfairly than other unmarried female gardai at the time who were allowed keep both their baby and their job.

She was continually pressurised by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers. Then she was charged, interrogated in detail about her private life, and almost sacked.

Not to metion that the male party to this "crime" was merely fined, and not threatened with the sack.

What’s more unbelievable are your hyperbolic efforts to suggest anyone was accusing Garda Moynihan of a criminal act, when nobody had done any such thing. Of course she felt she was being treated like a criminal because she was being disciplined by her employer for a breach of the regulations which she was aware of when she joined AGS.

She wasn’t treated any differently than other member of the force who was in similar circumstances. She wanted to be treated differently. That’s exactly where the problem was - she wasn’t going to be treated differently. The other Garda who was involved was treated differently because his were a completely different and separate set of circumstances. He wasn’t treated any differently than any other Garda who would find themselves in similar circumstances to his either. We don’t know anything more about how he was treated because there’s nothing in the media about him only that he was fined.

He offered to marry her, but when she refused (she says she had never intended to marry him, and remember, no divorce then - and it says a lot about him that he asked her father before he mentioned the idea of marriage to her) he didn't offer any financial or emotional support whatsoever and basically told her to f*** off, not giving a damn about his own child never mind her.

I suppose you're going to blame her for his being such an irresponsible callous cnut, too...

It doesn’t say anything about him that he asked her father before he mentioned anything about marriage to her, other than what you want to say about it? Maybe you’re not aware of the tradition at the time which wasn’t based upon Church teachings either but has a longer history than that of wanting to be seen to “do the right thing by her and the child”. Shotgun weddings, still goes on today.

That aside, I can understand from his point of view why he wouldn’t stick around after she turned him down. What was he supposed to stick around for? I can’t blame him for not giving a shìte what she thought of him at that stage when she at least appears to have made herself quite clear. We don’t know whether or not he would have supported his child because she decided to give the child up for adoption. He could still have wanted to support his child without having anything to do with her. I don’t know though how you can imagine he wouldn’t have supported his child when he doesn’t appear to have been given any choice in the matter.

I’m not going to blame her at all for him being an irresponsible callous cnut because I don’t know that he actually was an irresponsible callous cnut. Certainly one thing we do know is that both of them chose to be irresponsible on the night the child was conceived when in spite of the fact that they were using contraception, on the occasion in question when the child was conceived - they both chose not to use contraception. Again, fcukall to do with Catholic morality or the unavailability of contraception, as they had been using contraception up to that point.

So I would suggest that both of them were irresponsible in a number of ways, and jeopardising both their careers, or “Catholic Ireland” nonsense was likely the last thing on their minds when they were getting their rocks off. They didn’t care who would have sympathy for them then, but suddenly people are supposed to have sympathy for them for having to deal with the consequences of their actions? I’m finding it hard to muster sympathy for either of them tbh, and when one of them wants personal apologies for being disciplined by their employers as a result of their actions, I’m given to thinking they have to be taking the piss.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feckall to do with what “celibate” men were telling anyone at the time HD, sure 10 years earlier we’d already had a referendum to remove the recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church - passed by an overwhelming majority of 84% of the electorate.

You either completely misunderstand, or misrepresent, the purpose of that referendum.

It was intended (in the context of the s**t hitting the fan in Northern Ireland) to take a sectarian measure out of the constitution - and the RC church did not oppose this - this is all in the article you linked to, did you actually read it?

It was NOTHING to do with reducing the power and influence of the RCC over our institutions and society as a whole - and it didn't.

No, it had everything to do with people having notions about class, and their position in their communities and in society.

Yeah right. Why all the focus on sexual morality, and specifically those who did not adhere to the catholic version of sexual morality?

See the recent example that was made of Margaret Cash in the media and on here, and then come back and you can feel free to lecture me as though Irish society was somehow different 35 years ago from what it is today - people still generally condemn people they regard as being irresponsible.

There's a big difference between being irresponsible, and being a recidivist criminal with dozens of convictions for theft.

What’s more unbelievable are your hyperbolic efforts to suggest anyone was accusing Garda Moynihan of a criminal act, when nobody had done any such thing.

Do you know what inverted commas are for? :rolleyes: I said "crime". As far as AGS were concerned, she was treated like a criminal.

Of course she felt she was being treated like a criminal because she was being disciplined by her employer for a breach of the regulations which she was aware of when she joined AGS.

I'm sure her ex-partner was aware of those regulations, too.
Very different outcome for him, does having a penis justify that?
And as has been pointed out multiple times, "its the rules" does not justify immoral actions. What happened to her was immoral.

She wasn’t treated any differently than other member of the force who was in similar circumstances. She wanted to be treated differently. That’s exactly where the problem was - she wasn’t going to be treated differently.

Bull. Other unmarried female gardai at that time were allowed to keep their jobs while raising their child. Read the Irish Times article quoted at the start of this thread.

The other Garda who was involved was treated differently because his were a completely different and separate set of circumstances.

Yes, they both created a child but he didn't give birth to it, so slap on the wrist and he was grand

That aside, I can understand from his point of view why he wouldn’t stick around after she turned him down. What was he supposed to stick around for?

He had a moral and financial responsibility to his child.

We don’t know whether or not he would have supported his child because she decided to give the child up for adoption.

Did you listen to the interview? She said this was AFTER he said he wanted nothing to do with either her or the child.

Certainly one thing we do know is that both of them chose to be irresponsible on the night the child was conceived when in spite of the fact that they were using contraception, on the occasion in question when the child was conceived - they both chose not to use contraception.

You are making a very very big assumption, there.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You either completely misunderstand, or misrepresent, the purpose of that referendum.

It was intended (in the context of the s**t hitting the fan in Northern Ireland) to take a sectarian measure out of the constitution - and the RC church did not oppose this - this is all in the article you linked to, did you actually read it?

It was NOTHING to do with reducing the power and influence of the RCC over our institutions and society as a whole - and it didn't.




Yeah right. Why all the focus on sexual morality, and specifically those who did not adhere to the catholic version of sexual morality?




There's a big difference between being irresponsible, and being a recidivist criminal with dozens of convictions for theft.



Do you know what inverted commas are for? :rolleyes: I said "crime". As far as AGS were concerned, she was treated like a criminal.



I'm sure her ex-partner was aware of those regulations, too.
Very different outcome for him, does having a penis justify that?
And as has been pointed out multiple times, "its the rules" does not justify immoral actions. What happened to her was immoral.



Bull. Other unmarried female gardai at that time were allowed to keep their jobs while raising their child. Read the Irish Times article quoted at the start of this thread.



Yes, they both created a child but he didn't give birth to it, so slap on the wrist and he was grand



He had a moral and financial responsibility to his child.



Did you listen to the interview? She said this was AFTER he said he wanted nothing to do with either her or the child.



You are making a very very big assumption, there.

The father wanted to marry her and accept his responsibility. She denied him the chance to do so. Same as she denied him any part in his sons life. Her choice. Hers alone.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You either completely misunderstand, or misrepresent, the purpose of that referendum.

It was intended (in the context of the s**t hitting the fan in Northern Ireland) to take a sectarian measure out of the constitution - and the RC church did not oppose this - this is all in the article you linked to, did you actually read it?

It was NOTHING to do with reducing the power and influence of the RCC over our institutions and society as a whole - and it didn't.

You’re missing my point. Your claim was that most people in Irish society at the time did what they were told by “celibate” men, and the result of the referendum demonstrated that no, they didn’t. People cherrypicked what suited their own interests and individual morality, and chose to dress it up in religious values when it suited them. The reality of course is that they were people’s cultural values, and that’s why I said that nowadays people don’t even bother to dress their cultural values in religion, they dress their disdain for other people up in the idea that they’re morally superior to other people on the basis that they’re a taxpayer, and the people they feel safe to criticise as irresponsible, aren’t morally responsible taxpayers like them. It’s a class issue, not a religious issue.

Yeah right. Why all the focus on sexual morality, and specifically those who did not adhere to the catholic version of sexual morality?

Because of people’s cultural values, that’s why all the focus on sexual morality. The fact that people’s morals coincided with the Catholic version of sexual morality was no small coincidence - it’s how the Catholic Church gained the power it had in Irish society.

It was like modern day virtue signalling - people wanted to portray themselves as morally superior to everyone else. Religion was a convenient way to do it - no better way to make yourself feel better about yourself if you’re that sort of insecure person, than feeling like you were in a position to look down on everyone else. Nowadays there are all sorts of ideologies to portray ourselves as morally superior to everyone else. Just look at the amount of corporate entities, political parties and even the Gardai themselves looking to jump on the Pride bandwagon to portray themselves as morally superior to everyone else. Those who want to break away from Pride and bring it back to its origins view themselves as morally superior to the masses.

People want to signal to their peers just how virtuous they are, and it can’t have escaped your attention the sense of satisfaction some people get when closet homosexuals who speak out against homosexuality are outed. Leo played a blinder in that regard and played the media and the people of Ireland perfectly to his considerable advantage.

There's a big difference between being irresponsible, and being a recidivist criminal with dozens of convictions for theft.

Do you know what inverted commas are for? :rolleyes: I said "crime". As far as AGS were concerned, she was treated like a criminal.

Yeah, there is a big difference, the difference being that Garda Moynihan wasn’t treated like a criminal. She was treated like an adult who by her conduct had violated the regulations which applied to everyone in AGS, including her. She discovered that she wasn’t above everyone else in AGS and thinking that the rules that applied to everyone on the force, didn’t apply to her.

By your rationale, Paddy Jackson and co. were treated like criminals by the IRFU because they violated the terms and conditions of their employment. They weren’t treated like criminals, they were treated like adults who violated the terms and conditions of their employment. Garda Moynihan was treated like an adult who had violated the terms and conditions of her employment.

I'm sure her ex-partner was aware of those regulations, too.
Very different outcome for him, does having a penis justify that?
And as has been pointed out multiple times, "its the rules" does not justify immoral actions. What happened to her was immoral.

We don’t know what the full outcome for him actually was though, because we don’t have the transcript of his disciplinary hearing. We don’t have him coming out now in the public eye giving a contradictory account of her experiences from the testimony she gave in her disciplinary hearing. We don’t have him coming out in the public eye 35 years later looking for a personal apology for being disciplined for violating the terms and conditions of his employment. It’s just silly to argue that he was treated differently because he had a penis. We don’t know anything of his circumstances then, nor his circumstances now, and we know very little of his disciplinary hearing and how he chose to conduct himself when presented with the charge against him. We do know how Garda Moynihan behaved when presented with the charges against her, and she didn’t help herself IMO.

Bull. Other unmarried female gardai at that time were allowed to keep their jobs while raising their child. Read the Irish Times article quoted at the start of this thread.

I read it, and there’s not a whole lot about their circumstances or how they behaved when they were disciplined for their actions which violated the terms and conditions of their employment. It’s not unreasonable to assume that given the outcomes were different, they didn’t behave in the same manner as Garda Moynihan.

And before you suggest that I must never have done anything wrong to deserve a disciplinary hearing, I have, I violated the terms and conditions of my employment, was brought before a disciplinary hearing, and I managed to keep my job. I didn’t imagine I was treated like a criminal or that I was the real victim. I took responsibility for my actions. Garda Moynihan didn’t. That’s the difference. It’s not because I have a penis and she doesn’t.

Yes, they both created a child but he didn't give birth to it, so slap on the wrist and he was grand

We don’t know how he fared, because he hasn’t gone public with his side of the story.

He had a moral and financial responsibility to his child.

He was willing to take on that responsibility, but she turned him down. Then she tried to make herself out to be his victim. She was perfectly entitled to turn him down. She’s perfectly entitled to try and portray herself as a victim. Other people are entitled to point out that she’s not a victim of anyone. She’s a victim of herself. It’s her own victim mentality that makes her believe she shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for her actions, that everyone else wanted to take advantage of her and put her down (in spite of the reality that her superior officers gave her glowing references).

She too had a moral and financial responsibility to her child, but she chose her career over her child, and placed her child for adoption, when as you pointed out yourself earlier - other women took responsibility for their children, and they maintained their careers too. He was denied the opportunity to be morally and financially responsible for his child when Garda Moynihan chose to place their child for adoption and later came to regret her decision.

Did you listen to the interview? She said this was AFTER he said he wanted nothing to do with either her or the child.

I’d rather hear that from himself tbh. Certainly I heard it from Garda Moynihan that’s what he said, but given she has already shown she has a credibility issue with her different accounts between her sworn testimony at her disciplinary hearing and what she’s coming out with now, I’m inclined to be skeptical of her motives tbh. To me it appears as though it’s just another attempt to portray herself as a victim.

You are making a very very big assumption, there.

I’m really not, given that’s what she stated in her sworn testimony at her disciplinary hearing. I linked to it earlier, but you can read it here again -


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


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/transcript-of-the-rt%C3%A9-majella-moynihan-documentary-1.3928238?mode=amp

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

The father wanted to marry her and accept his responsibility. She denied him the chance to do so. Same as she denied him any part in his sons life. Her choice. Hers alone.

"Marry me or else you'll never get a cent off me and I'll turn my back on my own child"

What a bully.

She and the child were better off without him.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Marry me or else you'll never get a cent off me and I'll turn my back on my own child"

What a bully.

She and the child were better off without him.

Can’t seem to make up your mind whether she would have been a victim if she’d chosen to marry him, or was she a victim because she didn’t. Like Ms. Moynihan eventually realised - you can’t have it both ways!

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re missing my point. Your claim was that most people in Irish society at the time did what they were told by “celibate” men, and the result of the referendum demonstrated that no, they didn’t.

The RCC did not oppose that referendum, so your attempt to spin it as some sort of rejection of the RCC fails miserably.

People cherrypicked what suited their own interests and individual morality, and chose to dress it up in religious values when it suited them.

Sure, they do, but a lot more people back then were actually religious (as opposed to just ticking the catholic box) and actually listened when the man in black spoke out on sexual morality.

Because of people’s cultural values, that’s why all the focus on sexual morality. The fact that people’s morals coincided with the Catholic version of sexual morality was no small coincidence - it’s how the Catholic Church gained the power it had in Irish society.

Right, society wasn't the way it was because of the church, it was all a coincidence? This is getting more ridiculous by the second.

People want to signal to their peers just how virtuous they are, and it can’t have escaped your attention the sense of satisfaction some people get when closet homosexuals who speak out against homosexuality are outed. Leo played a blinder in that regard and played the media and the people of Ireland perfectly to his considerable advantage.

Wtf are you on about? Are you saying Leo should have stayed in the closet? Most people are now mature enough to accept that a person's private life is their own business.

Yeah, there is a big difference, the difference being that Garda Moynihan wasn’t treated like a criminal.

She was charged with an offence. It is not the criminal law but it sure sounds similar, hence treated LIKE a criminal, not AS a criminal.
Why did they do this? She was an excellent garda who had glowing reports from her superiors but some creeping jesus type decided to make an example out of her.

She discovered that she wasn’t above everyone else in AGS and thinking that the rules that applied to everyone on the force, didn’t apply to her.

Except the rules weren't applied to everyone else.

By your rationale, Paddy Jackson and co. were treated like criminals by the IRFU because they violated the terms and conditions of their employment.

Were they told that they were being disciplined, or being charged?

We don’t have him coming out now in the public eye giving a contradictory account of her experiences from the testimony she gave in her disciplinary hearing.

What are you claiming is contradictory?

It’s just silly to argue that he was treated differently because he had a penis.

They were both involved in the same act but the outcomes were very different. Why was she threatened with dismissal instead of just a fine?

We do know how Garda Moynihan behaved when presented with the charges against her, and she didn’t help herself IMO.

I am sensing a pattern here :rolleyes:

What exactly are you claiming was wrong with the way she "behaved" when presented with the charges?

And before you suggest that I must never have done anything wrong to deserve a disciplinary hearing, I have, I

Don't care. This is not about you.

He was willing to take on that responsibility, but she turned him down.

She turned down marriage, he then refused to provide any support whatsoever for his child or the mother of his child.
What kind of moral degenerate puts T&Cs on whether he will support his child? That he had to get his jollies or else not a cent?

She’s a victim of herself.

There really is a pattern in your posts. Whatever a woman does she is always in the wrong.
You should just cut and paste "the brazen huzzy should've kept her knees together, she deserved everything she got" into every post, would save you and us a lot of time.

It’s her own victim mentality

Amateur psychoanalysis on someone you've never met, wow :rolleyes:

She too had a moral and financial responsibility to her child, but she chose her career over her child, and placed her child for adoption, when as you pointed out yourself earlier - other women took responsibility for their children, and they maintained their careers too.

She was in an impossible position between her father providing no support to her, her ex-partner providing no support to her, and her employer providing no support to her, and worse putting pressure on her.

She said in the RTE interview that she was in no fit mental state to make such a decision when signing the final adoption papers, she had no real choice.

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

So he ran out of rubbers but wanted to get his jollies anyway.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can’t seem to make up your mind whether she would have been a victim if she’d chosen to marry him, or was she a victim because she didn’t. Like Ms. Moynihan eventually realised - you can’t have it both ways!

Anyone is better off without that type of bullying, coercive behaviour in their lives.

His moral obligation to support his child and his child's mother did not end when she declined to marry him.

Do you think every separated man in Ireland should have the right to stop supporting their kids financially, because the kids' mother isn't riding them any more?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Anyone is better off without that type of bullying, coercive behaviour in their lives.

Based on her version of events this time at least, and your own amateur psychoanalysis of someone you don’t know based upon the word of someone else. Am I supposed to believe her too just because she’s a woman, or on what basis are you willing to believe she’s telling the truth now and she wasn’t at the time of her sworn testimony? On at least one occasion she isn’t telling the truth.

His moral obligation to support his child and his child's mother did not end when she declined to marry him.

I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. We just don’t have any evidence that he actually ever said it only the word of the person who is portraying herself as a victim of him too.

Do you think every separated man in Ireland should have the right to stop supporting their kids financially, because the kids' mother isn't riding them any more?

Nope, and he didn’t have that right either, even if he thought he had or said that he wasn’t going to support his child financially. He still didn’t owe Ms. Moynihan anything as they were only having casual sex. It wasn’t as though they were married, so they were never separated either, so he was under no legal or moral obligation to support her in any way whatsoever as they weren’t in any kind of a committed relationship.

Mrsmum

I think it's unfair really to speak of the father as everything we know of him is via MM. Majella's story is her story, from her perspective. It's not the full story. Human nature is such that when one tells about an upsetting incident, or a conflict situation, each sides opinion is completely coloured by their own interpretation of the facts and is rarely completely fair to the other side from whose perspective there may be perfectly valid or understandable reasons for what happened. Many couples go for counselling, each thinking the counsellor will sort out the other one, convinced they themselves are totally right and the other is all wrong only to be shown the truth is different.

For Majella to say she and the child got no support from him seems nonsensical to me as he would have married her. Marriage = 100% support. We have no knowledge of his feelings at the time, almost as if he doesn't matter in his own right. Maybe he was having sex with her because unlike her feelings for him, she was actually important to him. Maybe he was hurt or even embarrassed she rejected him. Maybe he was raised to marry a girl when you get her pregnant so unprotected sex was based on that for him. Maybe he thought he wouldn't like to have to explain to another woman down the road that he already had a child. Maybe he was ashamed opposite top brass that he couldn't get her to agree to make it right. Maybe he felt she was making a right fool of him. Or maybe he didn't want his child adopted but knew that was sure and certain if she didn't marry him. Or maybe it was really important to him to make his child legitimate. Majella's story makes no allowance for any of those possibilities. She had all sorts of feelings swirling around in her head. Or we not allowed think he had any.

Also I'm not sure she is doing her son any great favour speaking negatively of the man who is his biological father, the man who Majella and not he decided wasn't to be in his life. It doesn't help a reunion should her son want one with his father.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

on what basis are you willing to believe she’s telling the truth now and she wasn’t at the time of her sworn testimony? On at least one occasion she isn’t telling the truth.

What are you claiming here exactly? 2nd time of asking.

Nope, and he didn’t have that right either, even if he thought he had or said that he wasn’t going to support his child financially. He still didn’t owe Ms. Moynihan anything as they were only having casual sex. It wasn’t as though they were married, so they were never separated either, so he was under no legal or moral obligation to support her in any way whatsoever as they weren’t in any kind of a committed relationship.

You could not be more wrong.
If you father a child you have a moral and legal obligation to support it.
"Just casual sex" - so our hero here gets to walk away and she's left with the consequences :rolleyes:
Do you have any sympathy for women in crisis pregnancy at all? You didn't show much in the 8th threads, but your posts on this thread are descending to a new low.

Hotblack Desiato

Mrsmum wrote: »

For Majella to say she and the child got no support from him seems nonsensical to me as he would have married her. Marriage = 100% support.

Support with some heavy strings attached. In 80s Ireland that meant "conjugal rights" (i.e. husband's legal right to rape) and marriage was until death, no matter what.

Maybe he was hurt or even embarrassed she rejected him.

Probably, but his immature reaction was to cut off any support for his own child. Totally immature and irresponsible.

Or maybe he didn't want his child adopted

Well you'd think then he'd be offering every possible financial and other support (with NO strings attached) to ensure she would have a real choice of bringing up the child herself.

Also I'm not sure she is doing her son any great favour speaking negatively of the man who is his biological father, the man who Majella and not he decided wasn't to be in his life. It doesn't help a reunion should her son want one with his father.

No, she decided not to marry him. That didn't give him the right to tell her and his child to f**k off because of his poor hurt feelings.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The RCC did not oppose that referendum, so your attempt to spin it as some sort of rejection of the RCC fails miserably.

It was an attempt to point out that people didn’t just do what they were told by the Church, not even the more conservative members of the Catholic Church who were opposed to the referendum. You’re trying to say most people did what they were told by the church, when clearly the facts state otherwise. Ms. Moynihan wouldn’t have ended up in the position she was in for example if she did what she was told to do by the Church, and by no means was she alone in that regard, but that contradicts your narrative of a nation of illiterate spud munchers in thrall to the Catholic Church. This was in the 1980’s, not the 1880’s.

Sure, they do, but a lot more people back then were actually religious (as opposed to just ticking the catholic box) and actually listened when the man in black spoke out on sexual morality.

They weren’t, clearly. They presented themselves to the public as pious, certainly, we know that much, but religious? Clearly they weren’t.

Right, society wasn't the way it was because of the church, it was all a coincidence? This is getting more ridiculous by the second.

Nope. The Church was the way it was because of society. Society was the way it was before the Catholic Church ever evolved into what it became as a result of people wanting to portray themselves as morally superior to everyone else,

Wtf are you on about? Are you saying Leo should have stayed in the closet? Most people are now mature enough to accept that a person's private life is their own business.

No, I’m making the point that yes, you’re right, most people are now mature enough to accept that a person’s private life is their own business, and then there are the minority who get a thrill out of seeing a public figure disgraced. Like Leo who was at one time against the idea of homosexual couples adopting children, and when he was about to be outed by the media as a gay man himself, he beat them to the punch. That’s how he played it brilliantly.

She was charged with an offence. It is not the criminal law but it sure sounds similar, hence treated LIKE a criminal, not AS a criminal.
Why did they do this? She was an excellent garda who had glowing reports from her superiors but some creeping jesus type decided to make an example out of her.

No, it’s not criminal law, and that’s the only thing that matters. She wasn’t treated like a criminal because she wasn’t a criminal, there’s no “like” or “as” about it.

Except the rules weren't applied to everyone else.

Yes they were, and some people abided by the rules, and some people didn’t. It doesn’t mean the rules didn’t apply to every member of AGS equally.

Were they told that they were being disciplined, or being charged?

Ahh seriously now HD, that’s a pedantic way to avoid having to address the point i was making. I have no doubt you understand the point I was making all the same - they weren’t criminals either, and I don’t know too many people would take them seriously if they came out with the line that they felt they were treated like criminals during questioning into what they thought were their private lives.

What are you claiming is contradictory?

Further down in the same link I posted earlier -


Question - Was there pressure applied to you to give the child up for adoption?

Answer - There was no pressure.

They were both involved in the same act but the outcomes were very different. Why was she threatened with dismissal instead of just a fine?

I know why she was threatened with dismissal, I don’t know that he wasn’t, because I don’t have a source for a transcript of his disciplinary hearing. I can only surmise that he was treated more leniently because he took responsibility for his actions and Ms. Moynihan didn’t. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable conclusion that’s based upon their actions, not their gender.

I am sensing a pattern here :rolleyes:

What exactly are you claiming was wrong with the way she "behaved" when presented with the charges?

I’m saying her answers were evasive and that she didn’t appear to try to help herself.

She turned down marriage, he then refused to provide any support whatsoever for his child or the mother of his child.
What kind of moral degenerate puts T&Cs on whether he will support his child? That he had to get his jollies or else not a cent?

Read the article I posted earlier. In her own words she wasn’t interested in seeking financial support from him. She appears to have wanted emotional support after she’d just turned down his offer of marriage. She can’t surely have been that dense that she thought that her rejection wouldn’t be upsetting. I’ll reserve judgment on whether someone is a moral degenerate based upon their actions, not just on the basis of someone else’s word.

There really is a pattern in your posts. Whatever a woman does she is always in the wrong.
You should just cut and paste "the brazen huzzy should've kept her knees together, she deserved everything she got" into every post, would save you and us a lot of time.

...

Amateur psychoanalysis on someone you've never met, wow :rolleyes:

I’m sensing irony in your post HD :pac:

Not to avoid your point but I’m not going to defend myself against something I haven’t done. My judgment isn’t based on whether a person who has done wrong has either a penis or a vulva, I don’t care whether they’re a man or a woman. The salient point is that they’ve done wrong, and being in possession of a vulva doesn’t get them off the hook.

You’re also ignoring the fact that I was just as critical of Pasdy Jackson and co, and George Hook, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed those posts.

She was in an impossible position between her father providing no support to her, her ex-partner providing no support to her, and her employer providing no support to her, and worse putting pressure on her.

She said in the RTE interview that she was in no fit mental state to make such a decision when signing the final adoption papers, she had no real choice.

She wasn’t in any impossible position. She had plenty of options, many more options than a lot of people. She wants to make out she had no real choice. The reality is she made some terrible decisions, and she paid a terrible price for having made those decisions. She made decisions she believed were in her best interests at the time, and when it all went tits up, she doesn’t appear to have wanted to take any responsibility for the consequences of her actions. I can understand that when she was 22, but to be beating that same drum some 35 years later? I would think she would have grown up in the meantime.

So he ran out of rubbers but wanted to get his jollies anyway.

And of course she again had no responsibility in that scenario then either, right? She had a responsibility towards herself to tell him she wasn’t going to have sex with him without a condom. She too it appears, wanted her jollies just as much as he did.

I sense a running theme in your posts at this stage too HD.

Mrsmum

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Support with some heavy strings attached. In 80s Ireland that meant "conjugal rights" (i.e. husband's legal right to rape) and marriage was until death, no matter what.



Probably, but his immature reaction was to cut off any support for his own child. Totally immature and irresponsible.



Well you'd think then he'd be offering every possible financial and other support (with NO strings attached) to ensure she would have a real choice of bringing up the child herself.



No, she decided not to marry him. That didn't give him the right to tell her and his child to f**k off because of his poor hurt feelings.

Polite society did not agree to women having babies out of wedlock and by choice bringing them up alone. Those who were doing it were those who had been left in the lurch, abandoned and at best were pitied. That was the context of the times Majella supposedly wanted to bring up the baby herself. Perhaps the guy wasn't a 'new' man able to adapt to what now is pretty normal. That's ok. He's a human being in this story, not a cardboard dummy. They were in a mess of a situation and they did what they did at the time based on their personalities and backgrounds. I doubt either of them were at their best at such a stressful time. She comes across as very vulnerable and fragile still and imo her story is more than a bit one dimensional.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What are you claiming here exactly? 2nd time of asking.

It’s written there in the post - she isn’t being truthful on at least one occasion, which presents a credibility issue.

You could not be more wrong.
If you father a child you have a moral and legal obligation to support it.
"Just casual sex" - so our hero here gets to walk away and she's left with the consequences :rolleyes:
Do you have any sympathy for women in crisis pregnancy at all? You didn't show much in the 8th threads, but your posts on this thread are descending to a new low.

What am I wrong about? I said he had no legal or moral obligation towards her, Majella Moynihan. I didn’t say anything about a child. I’m fully aware that both parents are at least legally obligated to provide for their children.

It was just casual sex. Our hero does get to walk away because our heroine decided that she didn’t want to marry him. Morally in that scenario then, he was only responsible for the child, a moral and legal responsibility he was relieved of when Ms. Moynihan chose to place their child for adoption. What was he supposed to do? Stick around like an emotional support animal at her beck and call? That would have been emotional abuse.

Do I have any sympathy for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy? Of course I do. I have every sympathy for women experiencing crisis pregnancy. I just don’t share your opinions is all.

forget about the case in question, weve posters in here now who want to go to war with irish history bedad

bizarre impulse.

Hotblack Desiato

Mrsmum wrote: »

Polite society did not agree to women having babies out of wedlock and by choice bringing them up alone.

This is 1984 you are talking about. There were plenty of single mothers by then, some of them were serving gardai...

What was achieved by threatening to fire her? Hadn't she been through enough?

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s written there in the post - she isn’t being truthful on at least one occasion, which presents a credibility issue.

As if, when she was desperately trying to keep her job, she'd take on the entire Garda hierarchy by telling the truth about senior officers harassing and pressuring her. We've seen what that leads to, even in much more recent years.

I mean, really... All she wanted was for it to be over with and to be let get on with her job.

What am I wrong about? I said he had no legal or moral obligation towards her, Majella Moynihan.

He had an obligation to provide her with child support but instead he said she'd get nothing off him.

Morally in that scenario then, he was only responsible for the child, a moral and legal responsibility he was relieved of when Ms. Moynihan chose to place their child for adoption. What was he supposed to do? Stick around like an emotional support animal at her beck and call? That would have been emotional abuse.

Oh ffs. If he was any sort of a man he would have made it clear he was not going to shirk his financial responsibility to the child he fathered. If he had done so, and if her employer had been in any way supportive instead of aggressively hostile, she might have decided to keep the child.

Do I have any sympathy for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy? Of course I do. I have every sympathy for women experiencing crisis pregnancy. I just don’t share your opinions is all.

Not really, when you said it was ok to punish her because she gave birth.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As if, when she was desperately trying to keep her job, she'd take on the entire Garda hierarchy by telling the truth about senior officers harassing and pressuring her. We've seen what that leads to, even in much more recent years.

I mean, really... All she wanted was for it to be over with and to be let get on with her job.

Y’know I get that she wanted to keep her job, I really do, and I can understand that she felt under pressure from all sides and felt she had to say whatever she had to say to keep her job in spite of what she felt was the endless harassment of actually being held accountable for her actions. I get that she made a mistake, she could have made a whole boatload of mistakes and I’d still understand that she wanted to keep her job because it was all she ever wanted to do. I get that she was in an awful predicament and she feels that she was treated unfairly.

I don’t agree with you that she wanted it all to be over, that could easily have been done. I can understand why she wasn’t willing to let it go though, because she felt she had been wronged by everyone and she was a victim. That’s why she was so easily convinced to go public again, because this time she was convinced that she’d take down everyone who had wronged her and expose them all and get the justice she felt she deserved. That’s why she says she feels vindicated now and yet even still she is considering legal action instead of just letting it go and getting on with her life in private.

It could be over in the morning if she wanted, but she doesn’t appear to want that because for her, she still has so much left unresolved. I don’t think she’s going to get the outcome she wants.

He had an obligation to provide her with child support but instead he said she'd get nothing off him.

No, he didn’t have any obligation to provide child support for a child that doesn’t exist remember? She was pregnant at the time, and there was no legal or moral obligation obligation upon him to provide for the foetus. I’ve already explained that I’d rather hear it coming from him that he said it, as opposed to coming from Ms. Moynihan claiming that he said it.

All we know for certain is that she claims she didn’t want any financial support, she didn’t want to marry him, and she feels she was treated badly because she claims didn’t provide her with any emotional support during her pregnancy. Again, she’s the victim, and he’s portrayed as you put it - a moral degenerate. Sounds to me like she wanted him in the permanent friendzone. I wouldn’t be surprised he wasn’t down with that. I wouldn’t be. I’d still provide for my child though. We just don’t know that he didn’t, because he wasn’t given the opportunity.

A proposal of marriage doesn’t infer that he just wanted her for sex either btw (quite the opposite if some people are to be believed :pac:), if anything it infers quite the opposite - that he actually cared for her and wanted more than just the casual sex they were having at the time. He obviously wanted a family, she didn’t. That was her decision and she made it. To say she didn’t have choices is ridiculous. She just made bad decisions that she didn’t want to take any responsibility for them, and still doesn’t appear to want to take any responsibility for her decisions. 35 years later I wouldn’t be entertaining her either. I’d have long gotten on with my life and if she wanted to go public I’d let her off, but that’s just how I’d deal with it.

Oh ffs. If he was any sort of a man he would have made it clear he was not going to shirk his financial responsibility to the child he fathered. If he had done so, and if her employer had been in any way supportive instead of aggressively hostile, she might have decided to keep the child.

That’s an awful lot of “ifs” to try and make a hypothetical argument a reality. The reality we do know however is that in spite of her claims, she rejected anyone who tried to support her. The reality we do know is that Ms. Moynihan pointed fingers at other members of AGS who she felt weren’t treated as unfairly as she felt she had been treated. What we do know is that in spite of her claims of unfair treatment, she remained a member of AGS for another 15 years. What we don’t know, is anything about the father of the child. I’m just guessing he would prefer to keep it that way.

Not really, when you said it was ok to punish her because she gave birth.

I never said anything even remotely like that? In spite of Ms. Moynihan’s claims that she was being punished for giving birth, she was actually being disciplined for a breach of her employers regulations. It appears she enjoyed the status of being a member of AGS, but didn’t want any of the responsibility that came with being a member of AGS. That’s nothing like even suggesting that it would be ok to punish a woman for giving birth, that’s just stupid now, honestly! You’re clutching at straws coming out with that shìte.

1641

I'm not sure what the big argument is about here. Next to nobody looking back now would think that this woman was treated well or fairly. But that is by contemporary standards. Many wouldn't have approved of how she was treated at the time - but that would not have been the prevailing view then. I suspect that most people at the time would at least have been socially aware of women who experienced similar attitudes and practices to Majella.

I was around at the time and reasonably aware of current events. This matter was reported in the Irish Times. I can remember no big ussue about it then.I don't recall it being discussed - maybe I heard it in passing at the time - maybe not. But I certainly was aware of women who were faced with similar choices of child v career. It was terrible but no surprise at the time.

As regards men, extremely few "stood by the woman" short of wedlock. It was one thing or the other for the majority.

marieholmfan

Where were RTE in 1984? This was 35 years ago. It's a personal tragedy but it isn't news.

ohnonotgmail

marieholmfan wrote: »

Where were RTE in 1984? This was 35 years ago. It's a personal tragedy but it isn't news.

so you keep saying.

marieholmfan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you keep saying.

I know. I'll unfollow and leave you to it.

Her father abandoned her and her sisters and set up home with a second wife. Maybe she just didn’t trust men?
Also, far from not having family support, she actually lived with her father after leaving the children’s home.
Where will it end? Will she go after the state over her rearing in a home? Followed by hospital where she gave birth?

Hotblack Desiato

1641 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the big argument is about here. Next to nobody looking back now would think that this woman was treated well or fairly. But that is by contemporary standards.

Nope
She was treated badly even by the standards of the time.
Single motherhood was not a new thing in 1984.
Other unmarried gardai at that time were allowed keep their jobs after giving birth, some were allowed move closer to home, work regular office hours, etc. in order to make life easier for them.
Not her.
She was pressurised for months by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers.
Then, after she did what they wanted her to do, they still decided to discipline her and came very close to sacking her.
Then continued to treat her badly afterwards.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y’know I get that she wanted to keep her job, I really do, and I can understand that she felt under pressure from all sides and felt she had to say whatever she had to say to keep her job in spite of what she felt was the endless harassment of actually being held accountable for her actions. I get that she made a mistake

No, she didn't make a 'mistake'. The two of them made a 'mistake'.

I was going to say getting pregnant was her 'mistake', but that's not it - giving birth was the real mistake, AGS would have preferred her to sneak over to England for an abortion and then nobody would have heard about any 'scandal'.

Vile stuff.

I don’t agree with you that she wanted it all to be over, that could easily have been done.

How? Short of resigning?

I can understand why she wasn’t willing to let it go though, because she felt she had been wronged by everyone and she was a victim. That’s why she was so easily convinced to go public again

Wow, do you know her or something :rolleyes:

Why are you looking at what she is doing now in 2019 and projecting that back into your imaginary scenario in 1984?

Wasn't willing to let it go, what is your evidence for this sentiment and what actions did she take instead of 'letting it go'?

It's baloney.

because this time she was convinced that she’d take down everyone who had wronged her and expose them all and get the justice she felt she deserved. That’s why she says she feels vindicated now and yet even still she is considering legal action instead of just letting it go and getting on with her life in private.

Again. Empathy. Where is it?

Do you think victims of other sorts of abuses should just STFU as well and "get over it", too?

She's perfectly entitled to speak out, and to take whatever legal action she wants.

It could be over in the morning if she wanted, but she doesn’t appear to want that because for her, she still has so much left unresolved. I don’t think she’s going to get the outcome she wants.

Maybe not, but she was cheated out of a career and a pension and that is a substantial finacial loss, and great damage was done to her wellbeing.

No, he didn’t have any obligation to provide child support for a child that doesn’t exist remember? She was pregnant at the time, and there was no legal or moral obligation obligation upon him to provide for the foetus.

There's no need to be a smartarse. You know I was talking about the future child - the one that he had an obligation to support should she not give it for adoption.

I’ve already explained that I’d rather hear it coming from him that he said it, as opposed to coming from Ms. Moynihan claiming that he said it.

If you think she's a liar, why not say so instead of just constantly implying it?

You've been doing her down, blaming her, belittling her and calling her mental state then and now into question constantly.

I’d still provide for my child though.

But he refused to.

I never said anything even remotely like that? In spite of Ms. Moynihan’s claims that she was being punished for giving birth, she was actually being disciplined for a breach of her employers regulations. It appears she enjoyed the status of being a member of AGS, but didn’t want any of the responsibility that came with being a member of AGS. That’s nothing like even suggesting that it would be ok to punish a woman for giving birth, that’s just stupid now, honestly! You’re clutching at straws coming out with that sh.

There's a big difference between £90 and dismissal. Both committed the same act. The difference is that one ejaculated, the other gave birth.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope
She was treated badly even by the standards of the time.
Single motherhood was not a new thing in 1984.
Other unmarried gardai at that time were allowed keep their jobs after giving birth, some were allowed move closer to home, work regular office hours, etc. in order to make life easier for them.
Not her.
She was pressurised for months by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers.
Then, after she did what they wanted her to do, they still decided to discipline her and came very close to sacking her.
Then continued to treat her badly afterwards.

I think that she was paranoid and felt guilty. At times she claimed to have no contact with her family, yet she lived with her father after leaving the children’s home and her boyfriend though enough of their relationship to actually ask her fathers permission to ask her to marry him.
Her mental health was fragile and in light of this she’d be well advised to take a step back.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that she was paranoid and felt guilty. At times she claimed to have no contact with her family, yet she lived with her father after leaving the children’s home and her boyfriend though enough of their relationship to actually ask her fathers permission to ask her to marry him.
Her mental health was fragile and in light of this she’d be well advised to take a step back.

Yeah, jaysus forbid the institution of the gardai do likewise.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that she was paranoid and felt guilty. At times she claimed to have no contact with her family, yet she lived with her father after leaving the children’s home and her boyfriend though enough of their relationship to actually ask her fathers permission to ask her to marry him.
Her mental health was fragile and in light of this she’d be well advised to take a step back.

The profession of psychoanalysis should be very concerned about the number of amateur practitioners on Boards, they'll be put out of business before long at this rate.

You quoted my post, but didn't address a single point of my post.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The profession of psychoanalysis should be very concerned about the number of amateur practitioners on Boards, they'll be put out of business before long at this rate.

You quoted my post, but didn't address a single point of my post.

Your posts go on and on about the poor abused bangarda. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in denying that the baby’s father offered to marry her and take responsibility for their child. She chose adoption and is blaming the Garda bigwigs for her decision. She’s not the first to regret a decision taken in her younger days. Time to move on and stop making a fool of herself. Learn from mistakes. Not dwell on them.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

Your posts go on and on about the poor abused bangarda. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in denying that the baby’s father offered to marry her and take responsibility for their child. She chose adoption and is blaming the Garda bigwigs for her decision. She’s not the first to regret a decision taken in her younger days. Time to move on and stop making a fool of herself. Learn from mistakes. Not dwell on them.

Just go back and listen to the documentary again.
Then take into account the fact that both the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice have personally apologised to the woman.
It is the State and its institutions that need to learn from mistakes.

1641

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope
She was treated badly even by the standards of the time.
Single motherhood was not a new thing in 1984.

Single motherhood was not a new thing but it was still highly stigmatised. It was very difficult as many families did not want their single mother daughter around - so they often had to move (if they survived the family pressure to go the adoption route).

Single motherhood with career was uncommon and very difficult. Plenty of single mothers/expectant single mothers lost their jobs - not necessarily "sacked" but there were plenty of ways to pressurise people. And it wasn't just the Guards or Religious order employers.

It was a very harsh but not out of step with the mood of the country - change was happening but the prevailing attitude was still very conservative on this matter.
No denying this was difficult for this woman. But if it is apology time then lots of women from the time are owed lots of apologies. Should we all start apologising on behalf of our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, etc, etc, etc? And then for all the other practices of the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc that have been left behind.

I have no sense of nostalgia for those times at all - they were oppressive. As no doubt this one will appear to future generations. Should they apologise on behalf of us? Maybe we should have an annual "apologise on behalf of those who have gone before us" day and theme it differently every year? We could then all feel virtuous.

elperello

elperello wrote: »

Just go back and listen to the documentary again.
Then take into account the fact that both the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice have personally apologised to the woman.
It is the State and its institutions that need to learn from mistakes.

They obviously DID learn from their mistakes, hence the apologies.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

They obviously DID learn from their mistakes, hence the apologies.

I hope they have. Time will tell.
All the power was with the men, she was very alone.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

They obviously DID learn from their mistakes, hence the apologies.

Apologies issued after she came forward......

Hotblack Desiato

1641 wrote: »

But if it is apology time then lots of women from the time are owed lots of apologies.

They are, yes.

Damn right they are.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Your posts go on and on about the poor abused bangarda. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in denying that the baby’s father offered to marry her and take responsibility for their child.

I never denied that. But there were other options between marriage and adoption and other gardai at the time were allowed keep their jobs while bringing up their child. Being coerced into marrying the father of your child when you'd rather not is a form of abuse in itself.

She chose adoption and is blaming the Garda bigwigs for her decision.

The garda bigwigs who pressurised her for months into signing the adoption papers, yes.

She’s not the first to regret a decision taken in her younger days. Time to move on and stop making a fool of herself. Learn from mistakes. Not dwell on them.

Mistakes like:

-- her father for putting her into a home so he could shack up with another woman
-- her 'partner' for disowning her and his son
-- her employer for treating her like sh1t and pressurising her into adoption. Then after she did that, continued to punish her despite her excellent record as a garda, on the basis of a fcuked-up catholic idea of 'morality' and a desire for revenge
-- and then even after she was punished and allowed to continue in the force, she was buliled.

If only SHE hadn't made all of those mistakes.

1641

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They are, yes.

Damn right they are.

I hereby nominate Hotblack Desiato to apologise on behalf of the past generations of the Irish for what we now recognise as their unenlightened thinking and viewpoints, their moral flaws, and for the actions that flowed from those flaws and unenlightened thinging, etc etc etc.


While you are at it you might also humbly call on future generations to apologise on behalf on this generation for all our moral flaws and unenlightened thinking, which will be all too apparent to those future generations with the advantage of hindsight.


May your humble apology and acknowledgement of our own failings free us from guilt and raise us to virtue.

You will probably need robes and some sort of pulpit.

Do you think will some sort of sacrifice be required?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, she didn't make a 'mistake'. The two of them made a 'mistake'.

I was going to say getting pregnant was her 'mistake', but that's not it - giving birth was the real mistake, AGS would have preferred her to sneak over to England for an abortion and then nobody would have heard about any 'scandal'.

Vile stuff.

Ok then, they both made a mistake in deciding to violate the regulations of their employment knowing that they were putting their careers in jeopardy. I was talking about her mistake because she’s the person who still claims she didn’t do anything wrong. She clearly did. We don’t know does the man feel he didn’t do anything wrong because he isn’t publicly claiming he did nothing wrong.

How? Short of resigning?

By acknowledging that she made a mistake in violating the regulations of her employment. She wasn’t fired, she kept her job, and she could have kept her child like many of the other members of AGS who violated the regulations of their employment and were able to keep their jobs and their children. She chose a different path.

Wow, do you know her or something :rolleyes:

Why are you looking at what she is doing now in 2019 and projecting that back into your imaginary scenario in 1984?

Wasn't willing to let it go, what is your evidence for this sentiment and what actions did she take instead of 'letting it go'?

It's baloney.

If you’re telling me there’s no need to be a smart arse, how about you practice what you preach? No, I don’t know her and I don’t claim to know her. It was obvious I was giving my opinion based upon what we do know of her. The evidence that she wasn’t willing to let it go is that 35 years later she still claims that she did nothing wrong and that she was being punished for giving birth. No she wasn’t. She’s choosing to misrepresent the facts when it’s quite obvious that what she was being punished for was breaching her employment regulations. She was treated no differently than anyone who has breached the regulations of their employment. She can feel like she was being treated like a criminal, but given her occupation where she was responsible for upholding the law, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that she knew the difference between being treated like an adult, and being treated like a criminal.

Again. Empathy. Where is it?

Do you think victims of other sorts of abuses should just STFU as well and "get over it", too?

She's perfectly entitled to speak out, and to take whatever legal action she wants.

Well she was always entitled to speak out and take whatever legal action she wants, and in the same way as she’s entitled to do whatever she wants, I’m entitled to say I have very little sympathy for her when she decides to misrepresent the facts when she’s speaking out and looking for sympathy and apologies. There’s nothing to apologise to her for as far as I’m concerned. She did wrong, she was punished for it, and that should have been end of story. She’s decided to continue it on, bringing attention on herself again.

You may not like it but empathy isn’t something I can pretend to feel for someone I can’t empathise with. I’d be insincere if I claimed I could empathise with someone I couldn’t possibly empathise with, so how I feel about people in other circumstances will depend upon the circumstances. I don’t empathise with Paddy Jackson either for example even though he could claim he was treated like a criminal so he’s a victim just because he had sex. That would be misrepresenting the facts and so my empathy would be in short supply there too.

I don’t regard Ms. Moynihan as a victim, and I’m not going to pretend that I do because it makes me a terrible person in your eyes if I don’t pretend I can empathise with her.

Maybe not, but she was cheated out of a career and a pension and that is a substantial finacial loss, and great damage was done to her wellbeing.

Ehh, no she wasn’t cheated out of a career and a pension. She chose to remain on with AGS for another 15 years. She didn’t lose her job as a result of any disciplinary action against her, she chose to leave 15 years later. What damage was done to her well being was as a result of her own actions, I don’t blame anyone else for that.

There's no need to be a smartarse. You know I was talking about the future child - the one that he had an obligation to support should she not give it for adoption.

I wasn’t being a smartarse. You brought up my position on the 8th amendment, I was bringing up yours. Fairs fair, if you’re going to try and throw shìt in my face that doesn’t apply here, you can’t complain about the blowback. That’s similar to what Ms. Moynihan is trying to do - she chose to violate the regulations of her employment, and then she tried to point the finger at everyone else and portray herself as a victim and doesn’t appear to want to take any responsibility for the consequences of her actions. Nobody forced her to violate the terms of her employment, she chose to. The fact that it all went tits up for her doesn’t make her a victim of anyone else, in the same way as I’m not being a smartarse by responding to you in kind when you chose to bring up my position on the 8th amendment.

If you think she's a liar, why not say so instead of just constantly implying it?

You've been doing her down, blaming her, belittling her and calling her mental state then and now into question constantly.

I didn’t say it because I can’t be certain she is a liar. I’m not going to accuse someone of being a liar without having irrefutable evidence that was their intent. I’m saying her contradictory accounts present a credibility issue, which they do. I’m not suggesting she’s a liar, because I don’t think she is intentionally lying. I have been calling into question her mental state because there is plenty of evidence to call her mental state into question. That’s why I said earlier in the thread that I believe she is a vulnerable person who is being manipulated by other people to push their political agenda. I’m not blaming her for anything she isn’t responsible for. If she chooses to go ahead with her legal action and that goes tits up too and she still doesn’t get the outcome she was hoping for, that still doesn’t make her a victim either.

But he refused to.

As I said, I’d rather hear that from the man himself. I’m not just going to take her word for it as it’s a pretty serious accusation.

There's a big difference between £90 and dismissal. Both committed the same act. The difference is that one ejaculated, the other gave birth.

No, the difference is that we know Ms. Moynihan doesn’t want to take any responsibility for her actions, and we don’t know anything about him, but you’ve been doing him down, belittling him, blaming him and calling him a moral degenerate when you don’t even know him. I don’t know you either, but I don’t have to know you to see that you’re choosing to believe Ms. Moynihan’s account of events because it fits with everything else you already believe about Irish society at the time, in spite of factual evidence which contradicts what you choose to believe about this particular case.

riemann

RTE pushing this story, hard.

Its not as if there is a shortage of genuine news stories this week.

Edgware

The dogs may bark but the caravans still roll on.