Garda Apology

Mrsmum

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

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.

The most relevant question I would like to hear an interviewer ask is - How exactly were you going to manage ? Would you have been able to afford a bedsit and childcare while you worked, especially on garda shifts? How supportive were your family in a practical way ? Who was available to help you ? Because quite frankly it's easy to complain of pressure to have baby adopted but if you don't want to adopt, you better have an answer to these questions. My 19 year old next door neighbour had a baby two years ago and she lives with her family who are so supportive and on whom she relies very heavily. I can't imagine how she would manage without that support in these times never mind then.

Jupiter Mulligan

Sardonicat wrote: »

That much is self evident.

That's good to know, thanks.

The day that I allow other people to dictate to me how I should "feel" about things (because let's face it, there's not much evidence of thought being displayed on this thread) is the day that I cease to be cerebrate.

eagle eye

Yurt! wrote:

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?

From my reading of what he posted he was talking about them in that time with the rules and customs as they were then.

Jupiter Mulligan

Grayson wrote: »

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.

And here my friends we have a text book example of how 21st century "debate" works.

Some slack-jawed joker who thinks that he's smart puts words in another poster's mouth and then challenges the other poster to defend them!

Sorry bud, but I'm not interested in joining your game of silly buggers.

Stop moaning ffs

eagle eye wrote: »

From my reading of what he posted he was talking about them in that time with the rules and customs as they were then.

They weren’t interested in a happy ending the two people involved getting married with their newborn.

They were following an archaic nonsense that shamed the woman in the situation. Not the man who did the deed.
And she bore the prolonged brunt of it. Not him.
They were acting under church direction with a bishop involved and with political clout.
That’s the problem.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Pure rot, and I see he's ignoring a threadban as well.

not the only one tbf

Jupiter Mulligan

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

And here my friends we have a text book example of how 21st century "debate" works.

Some slack-jawed joker who thinks that he's smart puts words in another poster's mouth and then challenges the other poster to defend them!

Sorry bud, but I'm not interested in joining your game of silly buggers.

im on the opposite side of the debate from grayson but thats unfair.

they are pointing out that the law aint necessarily right, and is open to need defending if you rely on nothing more that "its the law" as an argument in a moral context.

that's fair enough comment imo.

on the other hand, "she knew it was the rules and she knew the consequences" is not quite the same argument and is, imo, a fair statement to make here.

subtle differences maybe but valid to point out here i think

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

They weren’t interested in a happy ending the two people involved getting married with their newborn.

They were following an archaic nonsense that shamed the woman in the situation. Not the man who did the deed.
And she bore the prolonged brunt of it. Not him.
They were acting under church direction with a bishop involved and with political clout.
That’s the problem.

both were shamed

eagle eye

Stop moaning ffs wrote:

They were following an archaic nonsense that shamed the woman in the situation. Not the man who did the deed. And she bore the prolonged brunt of it. Not him. They were acting under church direction with a bishop involved and with political clout. That’s the problem.
They weren’t interested in a happy ending the two people involved getting married with their newborn.

It's history, we have learned from it. We can't be looking back frowning on everything. We need to accept the past and learn from in and look to making things better for everybody.

Strazdas

BarryD2 wrote: »

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.

Shotgun weddings were very commonplace in the past. Apparently as recently as the early 1960s, they were happening in large numbers in Europe.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

both were shamed

It’s a safe bet and a matter of record that she endured a much more gruelling and difficult experience than he did. Let’s be real here.

Stop moaning ffs

eagle eye wrote: »

It's history, we have learned from it. We can't be looking back frowning on everything. We need to accept the past and learn from in and look to making things better for everybody.

That was my point though. We have to acknowledge these wrongs that we have already and somehow still haven’t addressed before we can move on.

Until we do ireland will be forever trapped in this repeating cycle of shocking horrific events. And doing nothing about them.

Jupiter Mulligan

Deleted User wrote: »

im on the opposite side of the debate from grayson but thats unfair.

they are pointing out that the law aint necessarily right, and is open to need defending if you rely on nothing more that "its the law" as an argument in a moral context.

that's fair enough comment imo.

on the other hand, "she knew it was the rules and she knew the consequences" is not quite the same argument and is, imo, a fair statement to make here.

subtle differences maybe but valid to point out here i think

By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

None of which, of course, applies to a coercive situation like slavery.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s a safe bet and a matter of record that she endured a much more gruelling and difficult experience than he did. Let’s be real here.

be real enough to be clear in your language then.

nothing of what has come out about him has painted him in a bad light considering the situation both of them were in, and im not equating the behaviour towards both of them but he didnt get an easy ride and he wasnt part of the apparatus that mistreated her and doesnt deserve to be hoisted on that petard

ohnonotgmail

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s a safe bet and a matter of record that she endured a much more gruelling and difficult experience than he did. Let’s be real here.

In fairness he was fined £90.

Yurt2

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

None of which, of course, applies to a coercive situation like slavery.

It would be interesting to know if at the time, on penalty of losing your job, the gardai could legally insist a recruit not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Even in the dark days of 80s, I would suspect that they couldn't - and if tested in court I'd suggest they would have a hell of a time proving they were acting lawfully.

The Gardai can put what they like in their rulebook, they don't set the law or the parameters of people's rights.

Stop moaning ffs

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

None of which, of course, applies to a coercive situation like slavery.

Just checked. There isn’t any rules against priests molesting kids. In fact the culture of that orginisation promotes it and protects it. Isn’t that weird.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

be real enough to be clear in your language then.

nothing of what has come out about him has painted him in a bad light considering the situation both of them were in, and im not equating the behaviour towards both of them but he didnt get an easy ride and he wasnt part of the apparatus that mistreated her and doesnt deserve to be hoisted on that petard

He didn’t suffer relentless pressure in his job. He got fined £90. And presumably is still in the force. You dint kjow he didn’t get an easy ride. He was part of the apparatus that mistreated her. You didn’t hear what he said to her next they met?

Jupiter Mulligan

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Just checked. There isn’t any rules against priests molesting kids. In fact the culture of that orginisation promotes it and protects it. Isn’t that weird.

Not in the least. What do you find "weird" about it?

Stop moaning ffs

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Not in the least. What do you find "weird" about it?

So we should accept that and move on and shut up. One rule for state employees but another for a foreign entity and its agents with control of our entire society.

Really?

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

He didn’t suffer relentless pressure in his job. He got fined £90. And presumably is still in the force. You dint kjow he didn’t get an easy ride. He was part of the apparatus that mistreated her. You didn’t hear what he said to her next they met?

look

you said he wasnt shamed. he clearly was.

now, we both agree her treatment and his wasnt equitable

but then, its not consistent to declaim the treatment she received on one hand then being bitter about the easy ride he may or may not have gotten (i doubt we'll agree what the term would mean in context tbh) on the other

neither should have been subject to it, it was wrong

they also knew the risks, whether they agreed or not

litigating it through 2019 lens seems to me a foolhardy way to spend an afternoon tbh

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

It would be interesting to know if at the time, on penalty of losing your job, the gardai could legally insist a recruit not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Even in the dark days of 80s, I would suspect that they couldn't - and if tested in court I'd suggest they would have a hell of a time proving they were acting lawfully.

The Gardai can put what they like in their rulebook, they don't set the law or the parameters of people's rights.

i mean they couldnt insist that someone *couldnt*

they could set out the consequences, which they did.

i think a court case at the time would not have gotten very far tbh, times being what they were.

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

look

you said he wasnt shamed. he clearly was.

now, we both agree her treatment and his wasnt equitable

but then, its not consistent to declaim the treatment she received on one hand then being bitter about the easy ride he may or may not have gotten (i doubt we'll agree what the term would mean in context tbh) on the other

neither should have been subject to it, it was wrong

they also knew the risks, whether they agreed or not

litigating it through 2019 lens seems to me a foolhardy way to spend an afternoon tbh

I don’t believe she’s litigating it. She’s highlighting it. That’s all so far.
She said today she wasn’t interested in compensation.
So?

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I don’t believe she’s litigating it. She’s highlighting it. That’s all so far.
She said today she wasn’t interested in compensation.
So?

heh I'm talking about *us*!

MrFresh

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Just checked. There isn’t any rules against priests molesting kids. In fact the culture of that orginisation promotes it and protects it. Isn’t that weird.

There's the law though.

Stop moaning ffs

MrFresh wrote: »

There's the law though.

Which has rarely applied to them

Jupiter Mulligan

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

And would you mind pointing out in the Garda 'rules' where it states that unmarried recruits are not allowed to have premarital sex, or women are not allowed to be single mothers?

eagle eye

Stop moaning ffs wrote:

That was my point though. We have to acknowledge these wrongs that we have already and somehow still haven’t addressed before we can move on.
Until we do ireland will be forever trapped in this repeating cycle of shocking horrific events. And doing nothing about them.

Acknowledge what? That that's the way things were back then? We can't do anything about it now. If things were still like that then we could take affirmative action but they are not. We, the people of Ireland, realised it was wrong and stood up and changed things for the better.
The people who made the decisions in this case are dead or very old. Getting an apology from the organisation is meaningless at this point imo.

Muahahaha

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Not a guard and never was. Too smart for that.

ah here

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I don’t believe she’s litigating it. She’s highlighting it. That’s all so far.
She said today she wasn’t interested in compensation.
So?

Barrister and FF Justice Minister wannabe Jim O'Callaghan was on the radio earlier and said his legal opinion was that she couldnt litigate as the case is statute barred due to the passage of time.

He did call for her to be back paid her Garda pension as a form of compensation, something only the Govt. can approve.

1641

bubblypop wrote: »

And would you mind pointing out in the Garda 'rules' where it states that unmarried recruits are not allowed to have premarital sex, or women are not allowed to be single mothers?

I am not defending what happened to her and I doubt that there was a specific offence on premarital sex. But there would be a generic offence of "bringing the organisation into disrepute". Obviously getting pregnant outside of marriage would not qualify as such nowadays. But in the early 80s it would have - or arguably so. Such were the public (hypocritical) norms of the time. I was around at the time and unfortunately it was not that unusual for people to lose their jobs for similar "offences".



Incidentally, many companies still have "bringing the organization into disrepute" in the disciplinary code, eg, comments on social media by an employee which a company deems damaging to its reputation.

Stop moaning ffs

eagle eye wrote: »

Acknowledge what? That that's the way things were back then? We can't do anything about it now. If things were still like that then we could take affirmative action but they are not. We, the people of Ireland, realised it was wrong and stood up and changed things for the better.
The people who made the decisions in this case are dead or very old. Getting an apology from the organisation is meaningless at this point imo.

It’s anything but meaningless.
If your child gets hit at school by a teacher, you don’t want it acknowledged and dealt with and all the other parents to know?

Your child got hit last week so maybe it’s not important cos it’s this week

eagle eye

Stop moaning ffs wrote:

Your child got hit last week so maybe it’s not important cos it’s this week
It’s anything but meaningless. If your child gets hit at school by a teacher, you don’t want it acknowledged and dealt with and all the other parents to know?

That's a ridiculous comparison. Part of my post addresses the issue of changing things if they have not changed already.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s anything but meaningless.
If your child gets hit at school by a teacher, you don’t want it acknowledged and dealt with and all the other parents to know?

Your child got hit last week so maybe it’s not important cos it’s this week

policy, strategies and checks are put into place to ensure your child wont be hit this week, in this parable

Stop moaning ffs

eagle eye wrote: »

That's a ridiculous comparison. Part of my post addresses the issue of changing things if they have not changed already.

Your own post earlier conflicts with your current post.

Mine is that we have to address what went wrong and what was done wrong in order to stop it happennihg again.
It’s still happening. Look at the Garda whistleblower debacle.

It’s still happening and being brushed under the carpet. And you support that?

1641

1641 wrote: »

Incidentally, many companies still have "bringing the organization into disrepute" in the disciplinary code, eg, comments on social media by an employee which a company deems damaging to its reputation.

So do AGS, but nowhere is it defined what disrepute is. Just the judgement of the superior.

eagle eye

Stop moaning ffs wrote:

Your own post earlier conflicts with your current post.

You are crazy imo. Move on to somebody else with your nonsense.

martingriff

Nobelium wrote: »

Never let the facts get in the way of gender politics. He asked her to marry him:rolleyes:. He also faced a severe disciplinary hearing.

A £90 fine ya severe:(

SirGerryAdams

Damn there's a lot of martyrs/compo chasers in the media lately.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Your own post earlier conflicts with your current post.

Mine is that we have to address what went wrong and what was done wrong in order to stop it happennihg again.
It’s still happening. Look at the Garda whistleblower debacle.

It’s still happening and being brushed under the carpet. And you support that?

arah cmon would you stop and be serious

your next post will be water charges the way youre jumping around

1641

bubblypop wrote: »

So do AGS, but nowhere is it defined what disrepute is. Just the judgement of the superior.

But that is always going to be the case with a disciplinary clause of "bringing the organisation into disrepute" in any company.

For example, I imagine a guard advertising invites to a swingers party would face a charge along these lines - although it is not against the law and not an itemised offence. But maybe in 30 years people will look back and call that ridiculous. Norms change.


Incidentally I was around and working at the time so I have some idea about what was acceptable. I was threatened with dismissal myself for just a public declaration in favour of the "liberal agenda". I was well aware of women who lost their jobs because of extra-marital pregnancy.

Ipso

1641 wrote: »

I am not defending what happened to her and I doubt that there was a specific offence on premarital sex. But there would be a generic offence of "bringing the organisation into disrepute". Obviously getting pregnant outside of marriage would not qualify as such nowadays. But in the early 80s it would have - or arguably so. Such were the public (hypocritical) norms of the time. I was around at the time and unfortunately it was not that unusual for people to lose their jobs for similar "offences".



Incidentally, many companies still have "bringing the organization into disrepute" in the disciplinary code, eg, comments on social media by an employee which a company deems damaging to its reputation.

Can't have that now, can we.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Babies_case

Stop moaning ffs

eagle eye wrote: »

You are crazy imo. Move on to somebody else with your nonsense.

That’s unnecessary. You clearly can’t answer my point.

jmayo

Mortelaro wrote: »

To be fair sexual morality would have been expected in the Gardat the time and obviously scruples of the highest order in terms of who the members were and what they stood for

The fact that cancelling speeding fines and similar (the corruption you're referring to) was exposed and dealt with and officers exposing it and related issues vilified is irrelevant to this debate because at the time and up to today that was an acceptable norm in society (albeit the vilification wasn't exposed)
Having babies outside of wedlock or divorce was still frowned upon by the majority even if methods of dealing with it were swept under the carpet
A certain amount of the blame for the problem has to be laid at the general population and in some cases all of it in my opinion

So she deserved the treatment that was meted out to her then ?

I was just highlighting what a toxic septic organisation the AGS has been.
And what it was willing to put a young woman through all under the pretence that they were some great custodians and upholders of moral decency.

And yes they were morally bankrupt back then.
They didn't suddenly start their sleeveen ways, it has always been thus.
Just ask anyone that ever crossed them, no matter how much they were in the right.
For instance just ask any publican that has ever refused to serve them afterhours.

And bullcr** to your assertion that the corruption was exposed and dealt with by officers.
The brave officers that exposed it were officially filleted and their lives made hell as has been widely made public.

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Listening to her whining on Sean O'Rourke (RTE1 ) a few minutes ago, it appears that she wants everyone who was around in 1984 to grovel at her feet.

Evidently, she has decided that she is Ireland's national martyr - Macroom's very own Joan of Arc.

You really are a special person.

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.

So you have completed some of this training then ?

You certainly have the mentality to fit well in.

ah ffs have we been posting to the "i love the gardai and everything every garda has ever done" thread again

thanks for coming in and setting us all straight

we needed that

ok whats next on the agenda?

Edgware

Deleted User wrote: »

ah ffs have we been posting to the "i love the gardai and everything every garda has ever done" thread again

thanks for coming in and setting us all straight

we needed that

ok whats next on the agenda?

Well it is getting near " Spanish students on the buses" season Joe

Beechwoodspark

You’d wonder if she had her time again would she have just married the recruit she had the affair with.

That way she would’ve kept her baby (which obv was a big deal to her and rightly so) and also would’ve been in “good standing” with Her employer at the time.

It’s a tough one. She instead turned down his offer of marriage, relented and gave her baby for adoption, and ever since then by all accounts has been in a very bad mental state over her decision.

Edgware

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

You’d wonder if she had her time again would she have just married the recruit she had the affair with.

That way she would’ve kept her baby (which obv was a big deal to her and rightly so) and also would’ve been in “good standing” with Her employer at the time.

It’s a tough one. She instead turned down his offer of marriage, relented and gave her baby for adoption, and ever since then by all accounts has been in a very bad mental state over her decision.

She must have felt that marriage wasnt the solution. Then the practical work of rearing a child alone must have come into play. Her Mam was dead since she was one, her father was in England in a new life. She had sisters but there really was no close family support. It is a problem that a lot of women faced in that time. Of course she regretted having to put the child up for adoption but in the circumstances she had little choice.

Beechwoodspark

Edgware wrote: »

She must have felt that marriage wasnt the solution. Then the practical work of rearing a child alone must have come into play. Her Mam was dead since she was one, her father was in England in a new life. She had sisters but there really was no close family support. It is a problem that a lot of women faced in that time. Of course she regretted having to put the child up for adoption but in the circumstances she had little choice.

That’s what I’m saying. I’m not judging at all -I don’t know what this guy she had a relationship was like obviously- but HAD she married him, she’d have been able to keep the baby and her job presumably.

Edgware

Edgware wrote: »

She must have felt that marriage wasnt the solution. Then the practical work of rearing a child alone must have come into play. Her Mam was dead since she was one, her father was in England in a new life. She had sisters but there really was no close family support. It is a problem that a lot of women faced in that time. Of course she regretted having to put the child up for adoption but in the circumstances she had little choice.

i suppose laid out like that: what had the gardaí to do with the decision, really.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

In 1983, a single woman just had to go to her GP and get a prescription for the Pill, same as now. This is FACT. Mind you, they also had to get a prescription in order to legally obtain condoms!

mariaalice wrote: »

Its amazing what people think went on in the 1980s GP prescribe the pill to regulate peroids from the 1960s on now maybe they should have been more honest but its mad to think GP was in mortal terror of the Catholic church. Also the bizzare ideas people have about rural Ireland.

In my rural hometown, some of the GPs would only give married women prescriptions for the pill.

A friend of mine was told in 2002 by her GP that he was very disappointed in her when she went to him looking for emergency contraception.