Garda Apology

judeboy101

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So she gave away her child to keep her job in an organisation who made her do that to her own child?

Am I missing something here?

Guards suggested, at the behest of the bishop that if she gave the baby up she could keep her job, she could have said no.

Collie D

dudara wrote: »

What penance do you want from her? The only thing she did wrong was to sleep with a fellow employee. Everything else was as a result of the typical backwards mindset of the time.

Not just of the time judging by some of the posts in here.

kneemos

judeboy101 wrote: »

Guards suggested, at the behest of the bishop that if she gave the baby up she could keep her job, she could have said no.

The Bishop probably had a buyer.

Bobtheman

Deleted

Nobelium

judeboy101 wrote: »

Guards suggested, at the behest of the bishop that if she gave the baby up she could keep her job, she could have said no.

This is partly accurate. The Gardai commissioner wanted her sacked. Moynihan only kept her job at the intervention of the archbishop of Dublin, who feared firing her would lead to more gardaí travelling to England for abortions, if they became pregnant outside of marriage.

Mrsmum

So her choices were

1) get married and keep child, would she still be able to keep career ?
2) keep child and leave job
3) keep job

Aren't they the same choices endless women made, why is this so different ?

Bobtheman

Harassing unmarried mothers was common all over Europe. We just did it longer. She is looking for money or fame. You can't undo the past.
Ironically the church prevented her from being fired.
Its a news filler. But the media love this **** even though the media were as Conservative as everybody else at the time.
No doubt many women going for abortions in Ireland today will go looking for an apology /cash in decades time.

Yes it should not have happened. But Apologies from people not involved is pointless unless its a prelude to a legal case.
Though public figures love to grovel and would apologise for rain if it gets them on the airwaves

Nobelium

Mrsmum wrote: »

So her choices were

1) get married and keep child, would she still be able to keep career ?
2) keep child and leave job
3) keep job

Aren't they the same choices endless women made, why is this so different ?

she also had

4) keep child, keep job and stay unmarried

She chose what she chose.

Mrsmum

Also I think when people speak about giving up their babies, it's always the emotional side of it they refer to but I always think back at the actual time of being pregnant practicalities are what was more important then. Did she have the means to provide for the child, accommodation, money, childcare while she worked, support system.

Mrsmum

Nobelium wrote: »

she also had

4) keep child, keep job and stay unmarried

She chose what she chose.

Would that have been allowed for her to stay in AGS unmarried and keep the baby ?

Nobelium

She didn't want to get married, she didn't want to look after the child, and now she wants to sue the state . . .

Nobelium

Mrsmum wrote: »

Would that have been allowed for her to stay in AGS unmarried and keep the baby ?

yep, the commissioner wanted to sack her, but the archbishop intervened as he thought it would encourage female Gardai to have abortions instead.
The charges against her were dropped, and she received a caution instead.
There was no requirement for adoption, but she didn't want to look after the kid

Edgware

Nobelium wrote: »

She didn't want to get married, she didn't want to look after the child, and now she wants to sue the state . . .

Where has she said that she wishes to sue the State?
She isnt the Bailey one

Guy:Incognito

elperello wrote: »

The woman herself has received no apology.

There was a story in one of the papers that the commissioner apologised.

Edit. It was Charlie Flanagan that apologised.

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

Why all the fuss now?

judeboy101

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Why all the fuss now?

#Rosaparks

Mrsmum

I don't really see why her case is unusual in any way. She had a good few choices, it seems to me, far more than many.

AGS weren't best pleased with her or the father, who also had a hearing against him. Is he also entitled to an apology then. Anyway I'm sure they were not the only young gardai who ran foul of various rules and regulations and had to suffer the indignity of embarrassing interviews with their superiors.

elperello

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There was a story in one of the papers that the commissioner apologised.

She says today that she has received no apology.
Apparently the Commissioner and Minister have publicly apologised but not directly to her.

Edgware

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There was a story in one of the papers that the commissioner apologised.

The Commissioner and Minister doing the PR job and announcing an apology. The correct approach would be to meet Majella in person.

The Garda regulations of the time obviously had a catch all charge " bringing the Garda Siochana into disrepute"
I do know of a female Garda who became a single mother also around that time and she received a transfer to near her family home and kept the baby. Does that mean different approaches to this situation occurred in different Garda areas?

Force Carrier

For the laughable suggestions that she is planning to sue the state or that that was her motive >

https://www.claims.ie/statute_of_limitations

riemann

older i get better i was wrote: »

Listen to the documentary and it'll be obvious rather than commenting from a point of ignorance ye twonk.

Thanks for the advice, and the insult.

I listened to the original broadcast and the repeat which has just finished.

As usual there were some gardai who it would seem acted appropriately and wrote letters which reflected her in a positive way, and unsurprisingly some superior officers who took a different view.

Even today I don't know too many single mothers who are gardai. Not exactly an ideal combo.

Again I have no idea what she hopes to get out of this.

Will meeting Drew Harris and Charlie Flanagan while they read speeches prepared by their staff bring closure?

You can't go back and change the past, but you can learn from it and move on.

Sad that all this started with her Mam being killed in a road accident.

pinkyeye

Jesus H Christ this thread makes for scary reading. That people actually think it was okay to discipline a woman for having sex and getting pregnant is unbelievable.

Mrsmum

pinkyeye wrote: »

Jesus H Christ this thread makes for scary reading. That people actually think it was okay to discipline a woman for having sex and getting pregnant is unbelievable.

They were both, her and the father subject to disciplinary hearings.

Your Face

pinkyeye wrote: »

Jesus H Christ this thread makes for scary reading. That people actually think it was okay to discipline a woman for having sex and getting pregnant is unbelievable.

I don't find it scary but very interesting.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Why all the fuss now?

I don't think contraception was that widely available at that time. Wasn't a prescription needed and unlikely to be given to an unmarried person? Even for condoms?

Mrsmum

No one gives a toss for the guy but think about him for a minute. He wanted to marry her and for them to bring up their family. She didn't want him. So he then had no say in his child being adopted no matter what he thought about it. It's like he has no feelings in this. Now of course for all I know maybe he might have been well relieved but maybe he wasn't either ?? Who cares though.

suicide_circus

pinkyeye wrote: »

Jesus H Christ this thread makes for scary reading. That people actually think it was okay to discipline a woman for having sex and getting pregnant is unbelievable.

i think trying to judge the past on modern morality is scary. lots of things from 30/40 years ago sound fcuked up now but it was in a different context.

Mrsmum

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think contraception was that widely available at that time. Wasn't a prescription needed and unlikely to be given to an unmarried person? Even for condoms?

Yes it was available when I came to Dublin anyway round that time. All the girls knew the doctors who would give it to you and also there was the Well Woman Clinic.

Nobelium

Edgware wrote: »

The Garda regulations of the time obviously had a catch all charge " bringing the Garda Siochana into disrepute"
I do know of a female Garda who became a single mother also around that time and she received a transfer to near her family home and kept the baby. Does that mean different approaches to this situation occurred in different Garda areas?

No, the only difference was she didn't want to look after the child.

riemann

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think contraception was that widely available at that time. Wasn't a prescription needed and unlikely to be given to an unmarried person? Even for condoms?

In the interview she states they did use contraception, but not on the night of conception.

Muahahaha

judeboy101 wrote: »

She knowingly had sex outside marriage and an illegitimate child with a fellow recruit , in a time where rightly or wrongly, would bring disrepute to the office of garda. What did she think would happen?

Nice bit of victim blaming there, you must really hate women

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Why all the fuss now?

Another poster stuck in the dark ages

Nobelium

Mrsmum wrote: »

No one gives a toss for the guy but think about him for a minute. He wanted to marry her and for them to bring up their family. She didn't want him. So he then had no say in his child being adopted no matter what he thought about it. It's like he has no feelings in this. Now of course for all I know maybe he might have been well relieved but maybe he wasn't either ?? Who cares though.

Exactly, he also had to face a disciplinary committee and was charged and fined. She didn't, and the charges against her were dropped, and she was just cautioned.

elperello

There is a lot of conflation of the public and private lives of state employees in this thread.
All citizens have a right to their private morality apart from their duty to the state.
They don't mix well now and didn't in the past either.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think contraception was that widely available at that time. Wasn't a prescription needed and unlikely to be given to an unmarried person? Even for condoms?

The Pill was available by prescription, no matter ones marital status. Condoms could be bought from adverts in uk publications.

Mrsmum

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes it was available when I came to Dublin anyway round that time. All the girls knew the doctors who would give it to you and also there was the Well Woman Clinic.

The Pill and condoms were available to single women in Clonmel in the early 80’s. The Pill was actually available during the 1960’s though I’m not sure if for unmarried women.

Beechwoodspark

Just trying to understand this.

So the guy wanted to marry her, but she said no way and instead put the child up for adoption against her will?

Nobelium

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I don't think contraception was that widely available at that time.

It was, and in fact the male Guard was asked in his disciplinary hearing why they didn't use any, which would have prevented the whole mess.

Unlike the male guard she faced no disciplinary hearing and her charges were dropped. He had to face disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of conduct unbecoming, and was charged and fined.

Beechwoodspark

Nobelium wrote: »

It was, and in fact the male Guard was asked in his disciplinary hearing why they didn't use any, which would have prevented the whole mess.

Unlike the male guard she faced no disciplinary hearing and her charges were dropped. He had to face disciplinary hearing, was found guilty of conduct unbecoming, and was charged and fined.

He did ask her to marry him though? And she said no, but also she gave up the baby for adoption against her will and kept her job in guards.

Is that the basic story of what happened?

Nobelium

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just trying to understand this.

So the guy wanted to marry her, but she said no way and instead put the child up for adoption against her will?

Not quite correct. She didn't want to marry him, and she didn't have to put the child up for adoption, but she also didn't want to care for it.
She could have kept her child and her job, just like previous female guards did at the time, but she didn't want to look after the kid.
It was her choice to put the child up for adoption.

Mrsmum

elperello wrote: »

There is a lot of conflation of the public and private lives of state employees in this thread.
All citizens have a right to their private morality apart from their duty to the state.
They don't mix well now and didn't in the past either.

You are so right that they don't mix but it's just a fact they were totally entwined back then. A cousin of mine is a teacher in a small country school and she has two kids with a boyfriend. No one bats an eyelid (or if they do they keep it to themselves.) In the 80s she would have been out on her ear. Judging those times from where we are now would be like dropping a modern person back them. You can't mix the two imo.

Beechwoodspark

Nobelium wrote: »

Not quite, correct she didn't want to marry him, and she didn't have to put the child up for adoption, but she didn't want to care for it. She could have kept her child and her job, just like previous female guards did at the time. It was her choice to put the child up for adoption.

I’m lost !

She could have kept the child and her job but decided not to?

SEPT 23 1989

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Just trying to understand this.

So the guy wanted to marry her, but she said no way and instead put the child up for adoption against her will?

Job or her baby was the bottom line

She made the decision to give up her child

Nobelium

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’m lost !

She could have kept the child and her job but decided not to?

Correct. Other female guards who found themselves in a similar situation at the time did exactly that.

Edgware wrote: »

The Commissioner and Minister doing the PR job and announcing an apology. The correct approach would be to meet Majella in person.

The Garda regulations of the time obviously had a catch all charge " bringing the Garda Siochana into disrepute"
I do know of a female Garda who became a single mother also around that time and she received a transfer to near her family home and kept the baby. Does that mean different approaches to this situation occurred in different Garda areas?

Strazdas

dudara wrote: »

^^Put yourself in the shoes of a woman in Catholic Ireland back then. Many women gave up their children rather than face the social “outrage”. It was a different time, and while we would like to believe that we would behave differently if we were in her shoes, I’m not so sure that we would.

The whole of Irish society was deeply dysfunctional back then. People like to lay the blame at the feet of the Catholic Church, but I would say the whole of society was messed up......even the general population were dysfunctional.

Beechwoodspark

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Job or her baby was the bottom line

She made the decision to give up her child

And also turned down the offer of marriage from the dad?

Nobelium

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Job or her baby was the bottom line

She made the decision to give up her child

Incorrect, she could have kept the child and her job, like others did, but she didn't want to look after the child.

Edgware wrote: »

The Commissioner and Minister doing the PR job and announcing an apology. The correct approach would be to meet Majella in person.

The Garda regulations of the time obviously had a catch all charge " bringing the Garda Siochana into disrepute"
I do know of a female Garda who became a single mother also around that time and she received a transfer to near her family home and kept the baby. Does that mean different approaches to this situation occurred in different Garda areas?

Jupiter Mulligan

Seemingly the father of the child was fined £90 for shagging a fellow garda recruit. But no apology for him from Drew or Charlie, nor any offer to give him back the £90 plus interest.

Equality my hole.

SEPT 23 1989

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

And also turned down the offer of marriage from the dad?

Seems so

Beechwoodspark

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Seemingly the father of the child was fined £10 for shagging a fellow garda recruit. But no apology for him from Drew or Charlie, nor any offer to give him back the £10 plus interest.

Equality my hole.

No. He was fined 90 quid

This was after he asked her to marry him and she said no.

Confusing story

riemann

Nobelium wrote: »

she didn't want to look after the kid.

Repeating this doesn't make it true, and I've no idea how you came to this conclusion.

She was 22 and getting a lot of pressure from all sides.