Garda Apology

Yurt2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

What other choice did the household have? The Independent? The point is I was reading current affairs at an early age. I was well informed of what was going on and who was moving where.

Very stable genius. Paid loadza taxes. We got it.

BattleCorp

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Everyone finds Garda/Defence force training tough and anyone who says differently has never completed it. Its to prepare you for what is ahead. She was not a "young woman" she was trainee Garda. She had a working knowledge of regulations and the law.

I'm struggling to see your reasoning. Even the current Garda Commissioner seems to think that she was 'done wrong' as he is prepared to offer her an apology.

The Minister for Justice has already apologised.

These are high ranking people and they don't apologise lightly.

There's absolutely no way that carry-on would be tolerated nowadays - and rightly so.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0616/1055596-flanagan-apology-moynihan/

skooterblue2

Grayson wrote: »

Marrying someone to keep your job isn't really a solution.

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

BattleCorp

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

With a quote like that, I'm guessing you are acting the b0llix so for that reason - I'm out.

Jupiter Mulligan

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well there wasnt a socialist paper at the time and we didnt have the internet. could you have suggested another publication at the time?

John Mulcahy's excellent Hibernia magazine would have been pretty good at exposing such nonsense, as would Vincent Browne's Magill.

They would have been the journals that helped greatly to form my antipathy to the Official Ireland of the 1970 and 80's.

EDIT: And the Irish Times had just started to gather an excellent bunch of female/feminist journalists - like Nell McCafferty - who were beginning to take on the Irish patriarchy in all respects.

SusieBlue

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I must have touched a nerve do you have a few little illegitimates you cant account for the father?

Horrific thing to say.

Yurt2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

I'm going to put this out there, and I don't accuse people of this lightly, but do you think you might have a problem with women?

1641

morebarn2 wrote: »

While I agree that those were different times I can’t agree that by1984 things hadn’t changed immensely. Lots of girls were keeping their children and raising them singlehanded or with a partner , without marrying.

I lived with my boyfriend from the mid 70s, quite openly and we had a baby in 1979. I worked in a very public-facing role in a local authority and my circumstances were never an issue. After the birth I returned to work 8 weeks later and life continued as normal.
People were very accepting and it was certainly possible to have a career and a child, without being married!

We had as free a life as we wanted, the Church had no say or interference in it. Happiest years of our life really!

Well done, morebarn2. Things were changing and you were a pioneer of that change, obviously. Were you in a city by any chance? Things were easier there.

But there were a lot for whom this didn't work out. If you worked in a sector where the Church was in control (eg,schools, voluntary hospitals) your path may not have possible. I am aware of plenty of situations from that time where people were (one way or another) obliged to leave their jobs.

Also, it was not just institutions at the time - plenty of women were obliged by their families to go for adoption or leave "for England" (ie, out of the way).

So I have every sympathy for Ms.Moynihan - she was treated terribly. But so were lots of women in similar circumstances. They were terrible, hypocritical times. I see this case as more of a warning about anyone promoting nostalgia about those times. Perhaps, there is some specific aspect of her case that merits an apology. But more generally, if she is due an apology so are many others in similar circumstances.

SusieBlue

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

With that kind of attitude, I presume you hold yourself to the same standard and you're marrying the person who took your virginity?
Good enough to sleep with, good enough to marry?

Or do those standards only apply when we're talking about single women?

skooterblue2

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

John Mulcahy's excellent Hibernia magazine would have been pretty good at exposing such nonsense, as would Vincent Browne's Magill.

Never saw it in a country household. I am a bit like Tupac, I am a product of my environment. I am not going to apologise for what I read or the content of my education.

Mrsmum

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Some of the posts though..seems a certain faction still think or wish we were back in that cruel horrible Ireland of old.

No empathy at all lads no?

Well you may very well think that from my posts but what I really think is fretting that you didn't get today's standards back then is just ridiculous imo.

skooterblue2

SusieBlue wrote: »

Horrific thing to say.

I never cast the first stone. I took a few hits before I replied.

skooterblue2

SusieBlue wrote: »

With that kind of attitude, I presume you hold yourself to the same standard and you're marrying the person who took your virginity?
Good enough to sleep with, good enough to marry?

Or do those standards only apply when we're talking about single women?

Yep. I would have married the same person who took my virginity, but it didnt work out that way. She is off married to someone else and I am getting married to someone else and that was a mutual decision.

The difference was that neither of us were in training in Templemore, under regulations or had a kid. Yeah I would hold a guy to the same regulations. Soup for the goose is soup for the gander.

Jupiter Mulligan

SusieBlue wrote: »

With that kind of attitude, I presume you hold yourself to the same standard and you're marrying the person who took your virginity?
Good enough to sleep with, good enough to marry?

Or do those standards only apply when we're talking about single women?

Like it or not, his point has a certain validity.

The alternative, if you bothered to think about it, would be to accept that as he wasn't a man who she was willing to marry, she was being rather promiscuous in having sex with him. Not in a 2019 context, obviously, but very definitely in the context of the 1980s.

Of course a lot of the more indignant posters on this thread weren't even alive in the 1980's so simply haven't a clue about how women who were sexually generous were regarded back then.

skooterblue2

Yurt! wrote: »

I'm going to put this out there, and I don't accuse people of this lightly, but do you think you might have a problem with women?

Of course I do when she uses all the hot water before me. No I dont but we arent talking about a woman, we are talking about a Garda Trainee.

skooterblue2

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Like it or not, his point has a certain validity.

The alternative, if you bothered to think about it, would be to accept that as he wasn't a man who she was willing to marry, she was being rather promiscuous in having sex with him. Not in a 2019 context, obviously, but very definitely in the context of the 1980s.

Of course a lot of the more indignant posters on this thread weren't even alive in the 1980's so simply haven't a clue about how women who were sexually generous were regarded back then.

And if you were a guy whos marriage fell apart you could find it hard to get a job. The 1980's were very family orientated.

Yurt2

Mrsmum wrote: »

Well you may very well think that from my posts but what I really think is fretting that you didn't get today's standards back then is just ridiculous imo.

Even from the vantage of 2019, the most conservative interpretation of the rules deployed in concert and in consultation with the Archbishop of Dublin, leading to the bullying and harassment of a young women so that she in the end gave up her child was appalling even for the 80s.

Yurt2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Of course I do when she uses all the hot water before me. No I dont but we arent talking about a woman, we are talking about a Garda Trainee.

Happy enough with that answer. You're definitely a bigot.

skooterblue2

Yurt! wrote: »

Happy enough with that answer. You're definitely a bigot.

You say the cutest things!!!

Stop moaning ffs

BarryD2 wrote: »

I heard the documentary, tough treatment of that woman. Being of a similar age though I can appreciate the times that were in it and her position as a young woman and recruit facing all these Garda regulations and culture. I quite believe that it was very daunting. We are only hearing one side of the story, so who knows there may be different angles. I think what might have also gone against her in the patriarchal leadership of the Gardai at the time, was that her boyfriend offered to regularise the situation by marrying her and she declined for her own reasons. That might have been seen as a spurning of a logical solution by the Gardai of the day?

Can’t speak to the Gardaí regulations at the time but I don’t think ‘fraternisation’ was allowed at the time so he couldn’t have married her anyways unless one of them left?

Why should she have to marry him anyways. His attitude afterwards tells its own story. I’m divided on it and can see his point of view and hers. But she never asked him for anything. So fair play

Yurt2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You say the cutest things!!!

You wouldn't dare say the things you posted here to a woman in 2019. Even down the pub you wouldn't get away with it. Which is why I suspect you're here polluting this thread.

Stop moaning ffs

Mrsmum wrote: »

Well you may very well think that from my posts but what I really think is fretting that you didn't get today's standards back then is just ridiculous imo.

My parents were both kids of 16 when my mother fell pregnant. This in 76.
The local priest wouldn’t baptise me until they had married. They were forced to.

Spare me your nonsense.

jeremyj1968

I think there is balance missing from the reporting of this story. There is a great reluctance for broadcasters, especially male broadcasters, to ask the questions that would be asked around the dinner table. It seems like it's okay to just say that I "fell pregnant", and then cry, and that makes absolves you of all personal responsibility. If you take the scenario - just after joining the guards, a job that she said that she loved, future looking bright. And she decides to have consensual, unprotected sex with another guard. Surely if the career meant that much to her, she could have obeyed the rules, and took all precautions not to get pregnant?

Having said that, the guards, of course, made a hames of the follow up. If she broke the rules they should have just let her go. The ongoing questioning was a bit much and asking her about her sex life was very intrusive. And don't get me wrong, I think she had a difficult lot, particularly with her mother dying so young. But I think there is a need for a more honest assessment of the situation, and acknowledge that the woman herself didn't exactly do the best to help her own situation.

Mortelaro

As I expected The calls for an inquiry have started on the RTÉ news at one..
This is where this is going
A complete and total waste of money

We're made of it

1641

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

My parents were both kids of 16 when my mother fell pregnant. This in 76.
The local priest wouldn’t baptise me until they had married. They were forced to.

Spare me your nonsense.

But does that not just make the point? Those were typical of society's mores back then. They were cruel, hypocritical mores - most would agree that now. But most still accepted them back then, even though times were changing.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

You wouldn't dare say the things you posted here to a woman in 2019. Even down the pub you wouldn't get away with it. Which is why I suspect you're here polluting this thread.

this didnt happen in 2019

things having changed doesnt change historical context

Mrsmum

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

My parents were both kids of 16 when my mother fell pregnant. This in 76.
The local priest wouldn’t baptise me until they had married. They were forced to.

Spare me your nonsense.

Sure all that does is reinforce my point that times were different. The priest wouldn't baptise you but you think eight years later when little enough had changed and certainly not attitudes to unmarried mothers, AGS were going to be happy with her situation.

Stop moaning ffs

1641 wrote: »

But does that not just make the point? Those were typical of society's mores back then. They were cruel, hypocritical mores - most would agree that now. But most still accepted them back then, even though times were changing.

That’s not what I took from that posters comment. It was a very different time and horrific for a great many people, men and women both.
I have no problem with it being addressed now though however.

We’re still waiting on the reparations from the church, which the state paid for and full inquiries into events like the Tuam babies.

There’s absolutely no point in sticking fingers in our ears and ignoring all these horrific events. We need to address every one of them to be able to learn and move on.

Mrsmum

1641 wrote: »

But does that not just make the point? Those were typical of society's mores back then. They were cruel, hypocritical mores - most would agree that now. But most still accepted them back then, even though times were changing.

Exactly.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That’s not what I took from that posters comment. It was a very different time and horrific for a great many people, men and women both.
I have no problem with it being addressed now though however.

We’re still waiting on the reparations from the church, which the state paid for and full inquiries into events like the Tuam babies.

There’s absolutely no point in sticking fingers in our ears and ignoring all these horrific events. We need to address every one of them to be able to learn and move on.

legislation and policies were changed

that's the correct step taken

again this wasnt illegal, it wasnt hidden, it was policy at the time

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

this didnt happen in 2019

things having changed doesnt change historical context

This was my point, even in the context of the mid-80s, a commissioner sitting down with the head of the Catholic church in Ireland, poring over the sexual history of a young recruit was grotesque. The people involved were extremely arrogant and cruel even for their time.

They deserve the ass-kicking they're getting in the media and the woman deserves her apology and more.

Unshelved

Two experiences from the 1980's -

A college doctor (a Dublin college) refusing to prescribe the pill because "he didn't approve of it for unmarried girls - it encouraged them to be promiscuous". He was well-known for his conservative views on birth control but continued to be employed by the university until he retired.

An unmarried girl who got pregnant (the boyfriend didn't stick around). She was working in a office job (again, Dublin-based) which required wearing a uniform. When she couldn't fit into the uniform any more she was dismissed, with non-adherence to the dress code given as the reason.

The 1980's were like a different country. It's so hard to describe the atmosphere of shame and secrecy around female sexuality to anyone who didn't experience it. I have the utmost sympathy for this woman.

Grayson

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The difference was that neither of us were in training in Templemore, under regulations or had a kid. Yeah I would hold a guy to the same regulations. Soup for the goose is soup for the gander.

That's what's called an "appeal to law" type of argument.

It's the law, it's the rule, so it must be right. You're not actually looking at whether or not the actual rule is moral.

All sorts of horrible things are laws around the world at the moment. All sorts of horrible things were law here in the past.
Not to mention things that are bad that aren't illegal like cheating on a partner.

Saying something was wrong because there was a rule against it is a really dumb thing to do.

And as I mentioned previously, the government has apologised for things they did in the past. Loads of governments have. and they're generally the better governments.

Mrsmum

Shotgun weddings were as common as muck at that time. Why ? Because of the stigma of have an illegitimate child. Even that word is gone now, thankfully but it was not a nice word then. And when a girl got pregnant, her father or both parents would be right round to the fellas house telling him to do right by their daughter. That wouldn't happen now, it would be laughable but it happened all the time then. I don't think parents hated their daughters when they ran them up the aisle. I think they genuinely felt her life was no more good if she didn't do that, you would hear people say no one else would ever take her after that and of course they felt shame themselves too. Tough and very different times.

skooterblue2

Yurt! wrote: »

You wouldn't dare say the things you posted here to a woman in 2019. Even down the pub you wouldn't get away with it. Which is why I suspect you're here polluting this thread.

The difference is the context. Remember in 1300AD if you suggested that the world was anything other than flat, you would be taken out and burn at the stake. The difference is the context of the time.

Could you imagine in 1980 if it was announced that we would have an openly gay, Indian Taoiseach who wasnt democratically elected to office? You would be taken outside and burned at the stake too.

Jupiter Mulligan

Grayson wrote: »

Saying something was wrong because there was a rule against it is a really dumb thing to do.

In that case, I'm extremely proud of my dumbness.

Sardonicat

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

Saying something was wrong because there was a rule against it is a really dumb thing to do.

In that case, I'm extremely proud of my dumbness.

That much is self evident.

Feisar

Unshelved wrote: »

Two experiences from the 1980's -

A college doctor (a Dublin college) refusing to prescribe the pill because "he didn't approve of it for unmarried girls - it encouraged them to be promiscuous". He was well-known for his conservative views on birth control but continued to be employed by the university until he retired.

An unmarried girl who got pregnant (the boyfriend didn't stick around). She was working in a office job (again, Dublin-based) which required wearing a uniform. When she couldn't fit into the uniform any more she was dismissed, with non-adherence to the dress code given as the reason.

The 1980's were like a different country. It's so hard to describe the atmosphere of shame and secrecy around female sexuality to anyone who didn't experience it. I have the utmost sympathy for this woman.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

Grayson

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

In that case, I'm extremely proud of my dumbness.

So you think slaves shouldn't run away from their masters? Because there were rules against that.

Simply saying that something was wrong because there was a rule against it isn't a valid argument. You can argue there's a rule against something because it's wrong, but you still have to independently argue that the thing is actually wrong.

Kimbot

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I never said I was a virgin, just I have no wild oats. Maybe I have good memory and you are far out on the age too. Late 40's? Mrs Skooter to be is going to love this. If I remember the 1980's so well its because I was reading the paper at an early age and my father had me watching the 6 'o Clock News. As I always say I didnt know where Belfast, Baghdad and Beirut were but I knew what was going on there.

I must have touched a nerve do you have a few little illegitimates you cant account for the father?

MOD skooterblue2 - Dont post in this thread again.

1641

I think the attitude towards sexuality at the time was deeply hypocritical and the treatment of women who got pregnant outside of marriage was often cruel. But who is to apologise for the societal attitudes that supported all this?
I am not speaking about institutional abuse here but the more widespread societal attitude towards "fallen women". If there are to be apologies who is to apologise and on who's behalf? Should we not all, more or less, be apologising on behalf of our previous generations, ie, our parents, grandparents,etc? Or should we not concentrate more on ensuring that people are treated better now and in the future?
We should certainly acknowledge the cruelties of the past and learn from them - but what does it mean to apologise on behalf of previous generations?

Yurt2

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The difference is the context. Remember in 1300AD if you suggested that the world was anything other than flat, you would be taken out and burn at the stake. The difference is the context of the time.

Could you imagine in 1980 if it was announced that we would have an openly gay, Indian Taoiseach who wasnt democratically elected to office? You would be taken outside and burned at the stake too.

Run a little experiment for yourself: read out what you posted on this thread to your partner, then read it out to your mother, then your sister. Canvass their opinion.

I'll submit with confidence your comments won't get a better reception next year, or the year after that, or any year this side of a Isis style caliphate in Ireland.

tjhook

Deleted User wrote: »

im not sure that this instance is a practical opportunity to do anything more than agree that this was a ****ty approach and be glad that we changed it.

I think I agree with this.

I have sympathy for her, and I'm very glad things have changed since this took place. But time passes, society changes, the people in charge now aren't the people who ran things when it occurred. I think it should be enough now for society to acknowledge that in the past it generally treated very badly those who broke society's mores.

We won't get much done as a country if we have to open investigations into actions that were acceptable at the time, but unacceptable now. School beatings alone would keep us very busy for a long time.

skooterblue2

Mod

Banned, ignored mod instruction

Stop moaning ffs

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Hmmmm So when you read the 10 Commandments, Do you think we have any reason to keep those laws? Thou shall not Kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour? You dont think they are there for your happiness?

I am sure other religions or societies have the same regulations. Its like the Art of War, When Sun Tzu ordered that anyone stealing food from civilians to supplement rations be killed. He cried when one of his own friends and general did the same. He ordered his friend be killed otherwise it would signal one law for one and another law for the others. It would lead to the breakdown of law and order.

This is what we are seeing in society. Like the solicitor last year who was caught with cocaine, he explained it away when he should have been struck off and/or jailed. That gives everyone else the right seemingly to do what they want without fear or consequence.

The 11th commandment in Ireland only applies to government and its institutions

‘Don’t get Caught’

Elemonator

amcalester wrote: »

Money. It’s alway money.

Nobelium wrote: »

There was no 'forced' adoption. Other female Gardai who found themselves in that situation at that time, opted to keep the child and kept their jobs. They were even transferred closer to home.

How as there not a forced adoption? She was put under pressure by the Gardai management to put her baby for adoption. If that is not duress I don't know what is. It is a matter that did not concern them. Couple this with the fact that they hold the monopoly on legitimate force in the state and other controversies such as Maurice McCabe and economy was in ruins. She was told quite plainly that if the Archbishop had not intervened on her behalf that she would have been sacked.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what happened to other female Gardai, it didn't happen to this one.

eagle eye

Yurt! wrote:

I'll submit with confidence your comments won't get a better reception next year, or the year after that, or any year this side of a Isis style caliphate in Ireland.

I think he is more aware of how things were in the 80's than you are.
Not alone were women treated terribly if they had a child out of wedlock but gay people got beaten up regularly just because they were gay. They had to deny they were gay and if they were in a relationship they had to be very secretive about it.
Back then you could drink all night and hop into your car and drive home. If you knocked somebody down it was just an unfortunate incident.
If you broke the law but came from 'good stock', the Gardai would drive to your house and talk to your parents. If they didn't want you charged then you weren't. If you came from a poorer family you'd end up in jail.
I wrote an essay for a competition when I was 14 years of age about gay people being forced to join religious orders. I went to a Christian Brothers school and my mother was called up over my essay. I got a clip over the head from her and was forced to throw the essay into an open fire. This was the norm back then if you got out of line with 'normal' thinking.

Strazdas

Interesting story on Liveline just now from an ex-guard who says he was aggressively interrogated by his superiors in the 80s after he was seen in the company of a gay colleague, saying the interrogation was deeply humiliating

He reckons they were trying to find out exactly how many members of the force were gay (and presumably this would count against them in a big way)

BarryD2

Grayson wrote: »

Marrying someone to keep your job isn't really a solution.

Not the best reason to marry at all but wouldn't have been uncommon then and maybe even still now? The point is though Garda management may have judged that as the most practical solution to the issue.

Yurt2

eagle eye wrote: »

I think he is more aware of how things were in the 80's than you are.
Not alone were women treated terribly if they had a child out of wedlock but gay people got beaten up regularly just because they were gay. They had to deny they were gay and if they were in a relationship they had to be very secretive about it.
Back then you could drink all night and hop into your car and drive home. If you knocked somebody down it was just an unfortunate incident.
If you broke the law but came from 'good stock', the Gardai would drive to your house and talk to your parents. If they didn't want you charged then you weren't. If you came from a poorer family you'd end up in jail.
I wrote an essay for a competition when I was 14 years of age about gay people being forced to join religious orders. I went to a Christian Brothers school and my mother was called up over my essay. I got a clip over the head from her and was forced to throw the essay into an open fire. This was the norm back then if you got out of line with 'normal' thinking.

The difficulty isn't that he knows more about the norms of the 80s, if he was reading the funny pages in the Irish Press back then we all have a fair idea of his age, more to the point that he's content in 2019 to post garbage about the woman 'behind the bike sheds in Templemore', casting aspertions on her character just like the scumbags did in 1984. Pure rot, and I see he's ignoring a threadban as well.

Skooter and his rules eh?