Garda Apology

seasidedub

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?

Are you serious? It was the 1980's not Nathaniel Hawthorne's New England during the time of The Scarlet letter.

And "she" had sex with a garda? Sure god love him, she tempted him into it like.

She got to live a nightmare. He got fined 90 pounds.

By god this country's treatment of women was pure evil.

Stop moaning ffs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stop moaning ffs, you’ve been wedging your prejudices into the thread, all throughout the thread, when the woman at the centre of this particular case has not once held them responsible for the way she was treated.

Before you lecture anyone else about context, perhaps you should consider that it’s you is responsible for deflecting responsibility from the people whom the woman in this particular case claims are responsible for the way she was treated, not the people whom you want to claim are responsible for the way she was treated due to your persistent attempts to wedge in your own prejudices.

I’ve no interest in anyone being held responsible. And I have no prejudices thanks a million.
I’m happy she got to tell her story, ireland needs to know this went on and wake up, and if you have a problem with my opinion you really should read back on this thread. Some really strange archaic takes all in one place.

seasidedub

seasidedub wrote: »

Are you serious? It was the 1980's not Nathaniel Hawthorne's New England during the time of The Scarlet letter.

And "she" had sex with a garda? Sure god love him, she tempted him into it like.

She got to live a nightmare. He got fined 90 pounds.

By god this country's treatment of women was pure evil.

I welcome both your post and sesidedub's post- simply because in between both, there's an element of "hope" there somewhere as a contrast- but, obviously, as we know now, there was no hope- because GRA and AGS were in bed with each other in 1984, humping each other. :pac::pac::pac::pac:

The Irony.

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

My point was, GRA did F'ck-all in 1984/5 to support MM- leaving aside the bleeding obvious of what the culture was in 1984/5, what's your point ?

The CC had influence over any entity they could. And they did.

Was not just the Gardai. At all. Bet the top brass were Opus Dei. Think about it, was like the masons.

No promotion unless you kissed the bishop's ring at Mass, etc. Same all over the Army, Civil Service, Gardai, anywhere that was funded from the public purse.

No wonder they did nothing. Apart from controlling women. Endemic in society then. No promotions for looking after single pregnant women. Think about who controlled that ideology.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The CC had influence over any entity they could. And they did.

Was not just the Gardai. At all. Bet the top brass were Opus Dei. Think about it, was like the masons.

No promotion unless you kissed the bishop's ring at Mass, etc. Same all over the Army, Civil Service, Gardai, anywhere that was funded from the public purse.

No wonder they did nothing. Apart from controlling women. Endemic in society then. No promotions for looking after single pregnant women. Think about who controlled that ideology.

Would you stop lecturing me about the 1980's - I'm very well aware of what went on- I fcking lived the 1980's- so what's you're point here in THIS argument?

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you stop lecturing me about the 1980's - I'm very well aware of what went on- I fcking lived the 1980's- so what's you're point here in THIS argument?

You asked a question. Can you deal with the answer? Probably not, but that is your own issue to deal with.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

You asked a question. Can you deal with the answer? Probably not, but that is your own issue to deal with.

So you think the GRA in 1980's did no wrong

OK.



Thanks

Spanish Eyes

Deleted User wrote: »

So you think the GRA in 1980's did no wrong

OK.



Thanks

I think there were forces running the CC back in the day, and they had influence in any Government entity like Garda, Civil Service, whatever. Those influences (Opus Dei and the likes), ruled the roost IMO, and if you did not comply you would never be promoted. Just like the mason's handshake in many a police force elsewhere.

Don't know why you are so uptight about the reality of all this really. It was NOT JUST THE GARDAI. Sorry for shouting, but it was endemic in Government bodies from what I can see.

the sad thing is a large cohort of the posters on either side of this debate would read back on the last few pages and immediately think the other side was trolling them

but i have a terrible suspicion most of ye are genuine

thats the tragedy tbh

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So you think the GRA in 1980's did no wrong

OK.



Thanks

My reading of it says you and Spanish eyes are saying the same thing. Just coming at it from different directions

In the absence of any reply, here's what I think:

Either, in the 1980's, either...

1. AGS fcked GRA up the ass or

2. GRA fcked AGS up the ass

Either way, MM was never going to get justice.


But we know what? - to all you "bottom pinchers" in AGS, watch out!!! - you might just get an accelerated pension plan while your victims will get fck all- :pac::pac::pac:

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

the sad thing is a large cohort of the posters on either side of this debate would read back on the last few pages and immediately think the other side was trolling them

but i have a terrible suspicion most of ye are genuine

thats the tragedy tbh

Yep

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

My reading of it says you and Spanish eyes are saying the same thing. Just coming at it from different directions

and if that's the case, then fine- look at my last post above ^^^^ - that's really my only argument. -No offence to anyone I've interacted with this evening.

One eyed Jack

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I’ve no interest in anyone being held responsible. And I have no prejudices thanks a million.
I’m happy she got to tell her story, ireland needs to know this went on and wake up, and if you have a problem with my opinion you really should read back on this thread. Some really strange archaic takes all in one place.

Of course you have an interest in holding people responsible. Now you’re trying to suggest that Ireland needs to know this went on and wake up? Irish people know bloody well it went on, and were fully supportive of it at the time!

The reason I take issue with your opinion is because up to when I first responded to your post, I was reading your posts in the thread where you’re attempting to portray a narrative of a very different society of which this woman and others like her were victims of some strange archaic notions you have of the 80’s.

We know for example from this woman’s own story that contraceptives were available, because they were using them, that people were having casual sex, because they were, that AGS were held in high esteem, because they were, that not everyone at the time were in thrall to the Catholic Church, because most of them weren’t. They were mostly concerned with what their families, friends and neighbours would think of them.

Irish society really hasn’t changed all that much throughout history and much of what happened then still goes on today, and the same people who were looked down upon then are still looked down upon today. Take a look at what goes on in your own neighbourhood in the present before you get any ideas that we’ve moved on from the past.

You have a prejudice against the Catholic Church, and it’s obvious from just your posts in this thread alone that you do. This sort of nonsense was just another example -

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

There isn’t one person alive or dead in this country that came through under nuns or Christian brothers, that wasn’t hit or beaten regularly.
Her story isn’t about that. It’s far more serious.

I don’t know what Christian brothers you’re familiar with, but the school I went to none of us were hit or beaten, let alone regularly. 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. I could say the same of the Brothers in the CBS I went to. Her story is about that though, because it’s her story, not yours to appropriate and spin to suit your own agenda.

I’ve listened to her story and it’s not actually that uncommon at all for the times that they were, and it wouldn’t be uncommon today if a member of AGS were to bring the force into disrepute that they too would be disciplined as she was. She wasn’t treated any more unfairly than anyone else in her circumstances. I don’t think anyone owes her any apology, but if people want to apologise to her for something they didn’t do and feel collectively guilty for something they weren’t responsible for, then fair enough. But please don’t go assuming on my behalf that I’m not aware of the times they were and the people’s attitudes at the time which aren’t all that different to people’s attitudes now.

It’s your own strange and archaic notions of collective guilt that serve no purpose in addressing what you claim was a wrong committed at the time against the woman in question in this particular case.

But it still remains, the GRA public comment tonight, as reported by RTE New 9pm, was the greatest piece of sh1it3 comment from a union that is supposedly "interested" in it's members- like fck off to that.

Stop moaning ffs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Of course you have an interest in holding people responsible. Now you’re trying to suggest that Ireland needs to know this went on and wake up? Irish people know bloody well it went on, and were fully supportive of it at the time!

The reason I take issue with your opinion is because up to when I first responded to your post, I was reading your posts in the thread where you’re attempting to portray a narrative of a very different society of which this woman and others like her were victims of some strange archaic notions you have of the 80’s.

We know for example from this woman’s own story that contraceptives were available, because they were using them, that people were having casual sex, because they were, that AGS were held in high esteem, because they were, that not everyone at the time were in thrall to the Catholic Church, because most of them weren’t. They were mostly concerned with what their families, friends and neighbours would think of them.

Irish society really hasn’t changed all that much throughout history and much of what happened then still goes on today, and the same people who were looked down upon then are still looked down upon today. Take a look at what goes on in your own neighbourhood in the present before you get any ideas that we’ve moved on from the past.

You have a prejudice against the Catholic Church, and it’s obvious from just your posts in this thread alone that you do. This sort of nonsense was just another example -




I don’t know what Christian brothers you’re familiar with, but the school I went to none of us were hit or beaten, let alone regularly. 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. I could say the same of the Brothers in the CBS I went to. Her story is about that though, because it’s her story, not yours to appropriate and spin to suit your own agenda.

I’ve listened to her story and it’s not actually that uncommon at all for the times that they were, and it wouldn’t be uncommon today if a member of AGS were to bring the force into disrepute that they too would be disciplined as she was. She wasn’t treated any more unfairly than anyone else in her circumstances. I don’t think anyone owes her any apology, but if people want to apologise to her for something they didn’t do and feel collectively guilty for something they weren’t responsible for, then fair enough. But please don’t go assuming on my behalf that I’m not aware of the times they were and the people’s attitudes at the time which aren’t all that different to people’s attitudes now.

It’s your own strange and archaic notions of collective guilt that serve no purpose in addressing what you claim was a wrong committed at the time against the woman in question in this particular case.

If you say so

Stop moaning ffs

What was that earlier about Gardai and higher moral standards?
They’re at it again

https://twitter.com/JohnBurkeRTE/status/1140243741569093633

Beechwoodspark

Irish Times reporting that Majella Moynihan “May sue the state for damages”

Stop moaning ffs

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2019/06/17/i-remember-just-falling-to-the-ground/

In addition to the articles above, on page 13 in The Irish Times, on February 6, 1985, Mary Maher wrote a background piece on Majella’s story which was headlined: “Did baby bring discredit on the Force?”.

In the piece, Ms Maher reported:

“There have, in fact, been several unmarried ban-ghardai who have become pregnant while members of the force in recent years.

“Some of them at least appear to have been dealt with in a very humane fashion whether or not disciplinary proceedings were involved.

“One woman was transferred following the birth of her baby to a location near her home, where arrangements were made to care for the baby while she continued working.

“In another case, a pregnant ban-gharda was instructed by her superior to marry the father of her child, but succeeded in resisting the instruction and retained her post.

“In another case, however, a recruit who was accepted on the force after the initial medical examination, was found to be pregnant when she was called up several months later. She was dismissed.”

Mrsmum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Irish people know bloody well it went on, and were fully supportive of it at the time!

I totally agree with this line. Parents more than anyone were very judgemental not just of their own daughters morals but of everyone elses daughters too and the harshest critics of any girl that fell pregnant. In fact I would say if MM had your average parents of the day she could forget her notions of choosing to stay single and keeping her baby. That would be seen as being a 'brazen hussy', giving two fingers to 'respectable' society. Many, many parents marched their daughters and even a reluctant groom up the aisle quick smart.

Someone said earlier that I was an outlier knowing where to get the pill back then but really it was that falling pregnant was my biggest fear back then (even before ever having sex !) and that would have been the same for most girls. Before I came to Dublin, I remember a girl arriving home 'in disgrace' and all the disapproval around our area. Even that phrase 'in disgrace' tells you all you need to know about the attitude of the time.

And remember illegitimate went on the birth cert if not married and that or the more common version of it was a right insult of a word. Girls often married fast to spare their child that slight following them around evermore. When a girl fell pregnant, it was rarely about what she alone wanted anymore. That's why I kinda surprised at Majella who seems to be saying she could have kept the child. From her circumstances and the attitude of the time, I can't see how she could.

Men, not all but many had very much double standards about girls who had sex outside marriage with casual boyfriends. Perfect for 'having fun' with but not the sort you marry. And if you had the proof of another man's child, forget it. I'm not surprised that she suffered sexual harassment in the guards because clearly (sarcasm) she was not a good girl deserving of respect.

As an example of the sh*te attitude against women in those days Majella would have been typical but that attitude was everywhere. We might as well all write to her apologising for our parents and grandparents. Instead I think it consoles us in our immaturity to scapegoat.

Stop moaning ffs

I don’t think there’s any scapegoating goihg on. Rather people being made to face up to the past. And learn not to repeat it. Look over at the US and it seems to be headed back down that road. Hopefully we learn from it and revelations like this are important in helping us stop that from happening.

Beechwoodspark

Anyone want to have a guess how much she will receive if this damages cases goes ahead ?

Maybe someone can advise but can’t see the state robustly defending it?

It’d be PR nightmare for Leo and co in the run up to an election.

The purse is going to be opened for this case looks like.

You’d have to Wonder did that play a role in her “going public” after all these years too

been said a dozen times- as far as this case goes, that's all been done

anything further is.....hmmm.

Nermal

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Anyone want to have a guess how much she will receive if this damages cases goes ahead ?

Maybe someone can advise but can’t see the state robustly defending it?

It’d be PR nightmare for Leo and co in the run up to an election.

The purse is going to be opened for this case looks like.

The state purse is open for everyone who can make the front page with a sob story. It will be our downfall.

One eyed Jack

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I don’t think there’s any scapegoating goihg on. Rather people being made to face up to the past. And learn not to repeat it. Look over at the US and it seems to be headed back down that road. Hopefully we learn from it and revelations like this are important in helping us stop that from happening.

What you’re attempting to do though is scapegoating. People being made to face up to the past? Learn not to repeat it? As far as most people are concerned, these things happened in the past, to someone else, they’re not responsible for the actions of someone else, so what have they to face up to, and what have they to learn from?

These “revelations” won’t stop individuals from doing what they believe they’ll get away with, and they won’t make anyone more aware of anything they weren’t already fully aware of. Majella Moynihan was fully aware of the circumstances in which she found herself, and fully aware of the potential consequences of her actions. As an officer of AGS she was more aware than most people that she was jeopardising her own career. She chose that. She feels she was a victim because she was caught and others weren’t, and she feels she was treated unfairly because she wasn’t treated the same as other women who didn’t behave the same way she did.

I’m not sure what looking at the US is supposed to mean either tbh, heading back down what road?

STB.

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?

Perhaps we should continue to live in the stone age like yourself pal.


Disrepute, phffff.

Mrsmum

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

I don’t think there’s any scapegoating goihg on. Rather people being made to face up to the past. And learn not to repeat it. Look over at the US and it seems to be headed back down that road. Hopefully we learn from it and revelations like this are important in helping us stop that from happening.

Of course there is scapegoating. People are not facing up to the past by saying "look over there, it was them that did it, shame on them". It wasn't them alone. It was them and us (our parents and grandparents). They were us and we were them. Ireland (us) treated women disgracefully, not any one section, all of it.

While you're at it, write me a letter of apology and I'll write one to myself also on behalf of my forefathers because I was forced to live life a certain way according to rules that were not according to the way I wanted to live.

hawkelady

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Anyone want to have a guess how much she will receive if this damages cases goes ahead ?

Maybe someone can advise but can’t see the state robustly defending it?

It’d be PR nightmare for Leo and co in the run up to an election.

The purse is going to be opened for this case looks like.

You’d have to Wonder did that play a role in her “going public” after all these years too

Off course it played a role. She wants money

Stop moaning ffs

Mrsmum wrote: »

Of course there is scapegoating. People are not facing up to the past by saying "look over there, it was them that did it, shame on them". It wasn't them alone. It was them and us (our parents and grandparents). They were us and we were them. Ireland (us) treated women disgracefully, not any one section, all of it.

While you're at it, write me a letter of apology and I'll write one to myself also on behalf of my forefathers because I was forced to live life a certain way according to rules that were not according to the way I wanted to live.

Of course we did. Nobody’s denying that. You have that other poster saying I’m blaming the church(I don’t know how but ok). It was an ugly modest shared by w lot of people and institutions at the time. Wouldn’t go as far as to say everyone I was in shorts in the 80s but a vast majority of people for sure.
And it’s still important it’s raised And addressed as in this case.

Stop moaning ffs

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you’re attempting to do though is scapegoating. People being made to face up to the past? Learn not to repeat it? As far as most people are concerned, these things happened in the past, to someone else, they’re not responsible for the actions of someone else, so what have they to face up to, and what have they to learn from?

These “revelations” won’t stop individuals from doing what they believe they’ll get away with, and they won’t make anyone more aware of anything they weren’t already fully aware of. Majella Moynihan was fully aware of the circumstances in which she found herself, and fully aware of the potential consequences of her actions. As an officer of AGS she was more aware than most people that she was jeopardising her own career. She chose that. She feels she was a victim because she was caught and others weren’t, and she feels she was treated unfairly because she wasn’t treated the same as other women who didn’t behave the same way she did.

I’m not sure what looking at the US is supposed to mean either tbh, heading back down what road?

So it’s Majellas own fault?
Right so. I’ll leave you to back that up.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So it’s Majellas own fault?
Right so. I’ll leave you to back that up.

She knew the rules. She took risks. She decided that the father would have no say in his child’s future. She was responsible for her own actions. Only her.

For the sake of her fragile health, she needs take a step back.

Spanish Eyes

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Kudos to the Protestant employers. Guinness, and so on. Never hear anything but good about them.

Not so good about CS and other Government employers though as evidenced in the thread.

What a bizarre thing to bring into this thread. Try being a Catholic in 1935 and looking for a senior management job in Guinness, Jameson or any other distillery, or the vast majority of insurance companies and banks in Ireland and see how you get on. That discrimination, just because it was against the vast majority of the population of Ireland, shouldn't have the privilege of collective amnesia either.

As for this case, and all the other ones - this case has many similarities to what happened the teacher Eileen Flynn in Wexford in 1982 - it would help greatly if the state's funding for historical research began to be invested into studying the social history of all these marginalised and demonised people of post-independence Ireland, from the industrial schools to the mother and child homes to the laundries. Instead, they keep funding professional historians to do more of this safe, bullshít elite politics and wars.

Imagine how our understanding of Ireland would change if we had an army of researchers paid to investigate social history for a change?

One eyed Jack

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

So it’s Majellas own fault?
Right so. I’ll leave you to back that up.

It’s her own fault that she found herself in the circumstances she was in at the time, yes. Nothing in her account of the events suggests that she was forced to have sex against her will. She was responsible for her actions, in the same way as everyone else involved was responsible for their actions. 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. She wants to portray herself as the victim in all of this when the reality is that she is ultimately responsible for her circumstances, and in spite of your earlier claim that her child was taken from her illegally, he wasn’t. She chose to place her child for adoption, and understandably came to regret her decision.

That doesn’t give her the excuse to assuage her guilt by trying to make herself out to be a helpless victim who was manipulated and mistreated by everyone else.

Mrsmum

Deleted User wrote: »

What a bizarre thing to bring into this thread. Try being a Catholic in 1935 and looking for a senior management job in Guinness, Jameson or any other distillery, or the vast majority of insurance companies and banks in Ireland and see how you get on. That discrimination, just because it was against the vast majority of the population of Ireland, shouldn't have the privilege of collective amnesia either.

As for this case, and all the other ones - this case has many similarities to what happened the teacher Eileen Flynn in Wexford in 1982 - it would help greatly if the state's funding for historical research began to be invested into studying the social history of all these marginalised and demonised people of post-independence Ireland, from the industrial schools to the mother and child homes to the laundries. Instead, they keep funding professional historians to do more of this safe, bullshít elite politics and wars.

Imagine how our understanding of Ireland would change if we had an army of researchers paid to investigate social history for a change?

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

Stop moaning ffs

Mrsmum wrote: »

Of course there is scapegoating. People are not facing up to the past by saying "look over there, it was them that did it, shame on them". It wasn't them alone. It was them and us (our parents and grandparents). They were us and we were them. Ireland (us) treated women disgracefully, not any one section, all of it.

While you're at it, write me a letter of apology and I'll write one to myself also on behalf of my forefathers because I was forced to live life a certain way according to rules that were not according to the way I wanted to live.

It seems that outdated judgmental and bad minded view of women is still alive and well if you look up a few posts.

Yurt2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

. She chose to place her child for adoption, and understandably came to regret her decision.

She was harassed and bullied into giving up her child, by members of a state institution in concert with the church with the very real threat of losing her livelihood hanging over her.

We should come up with a new rule, we ship all the posters denigrating this woman and minimising her suffering to Rockall. They can recreate the conditions of 1950s - 1980s Ireland where 'the rules are the rules' , and we can all live in peace.

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It seems that outdated udgemental and bad minded view of women is still alive and well if you look up a few posts.

it seems that you and a few others cannot or will not make a distinction between majellas agency in her own problems under a very different but known system and supporting that system being in place today.

and as ive said it must be ten times now people have made the point to you

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

She was harassed and bullied into giving up her child, by members of a state institution in concert with the church with the very real threat of losing her livelihood hanging over her.

We should come up with a new rule, we ship all the posters denigrating this woman and minimising her suffering to Rockall. They can recreate the conditions of 1950s - 1980s Ireland where 'the rules are the rules' , and we can all live in peace.

who is the "we" that come up with this rule

would we have to sign up to it as part of the terms and conditions of our employment

would we be offered rockall or resignation from that employment

behave will ye

Stop moaning ffs

[Deleted User] wrote: »

it seems that you and a few others cannot or will not make a distinction between majellas agency in her own problems under a very different but known system and supporting that system being in place today.

and as ive said it must be ten times now people have made the point to you

Then and now?
The files relating to her case have magically disappeared from GHQ.
Very different system me hole

Stop moaning ffs

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Then and now?
The files relating to her case have magically disappeared from GHQ.
Very different system me hole

very different system of society. ive little enough interest in gotcha debating if im honest

we've one source on the files disappearing, id not say a disinterested source.

if people knew the filing systems of the public service as a whole theyd be more amazed anything was ever found

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

who is the "we" that come up with this rule

would we have to sign up to it as part of the terms and conditions of our employment

would we be offered rockall or resignation from that employment

behave will ye

Those would be the rules. Who cares if they are grounded in ethics or are indeed congruent with the legal framework.

Rules are rules as we have all learned from this thread. If they are inked on a page they are to be followed and interpreted by those with office as they see fit.

Now, do you have any special dietary requirements while on Rockall? I hope you like seafood.

One eyed Jack

Yurt! wrote: »

She was harassed and bullied into giving up her child, by members of a state institution in concert with the church with the very real threat of losing her livelihood hanging over her.

What do you mean “in concert with the Church”? She contacted the Catholic crisis pregnancy agency herself! Apparently had it not been for the Church she would have been fired.

We should come up with a new rule, we ship all the posters denigrating this woman and minimising her suffering to Rockall. They can recreate the conditions of 1950s - 1980s Ireland where 'the rules are the rules' , and we can all live in peace.

I have an even better idea - rather than rounding people up and shipping them off to some remote island against their will, you go, and set up your own little island just how you like it with the rules that suit you, or no rules, whatever, it’s your island.

Bannasidhe

boardise wrote: »

What a stupid comment -. Of course he's not . It's an analogy for heaven's sake.

It's a stupid analogy.

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

Those would be the rules. Who cares if they are grounded in ethics or are indeed congruent with the legal framework.

Rules are rules as we have all learned from this thread. If they are inked on a page they are to be followed and interpreted by those with office as they see fit.

Now, do you have any special dietary requirements while on Rockall? I hope you like seafood.

ive made relevant points, you've not addressed them

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

ive made relevant points, you've not addressed them

No, you're dancing on the head of pin. Making out that a young woman who grew up in an industrial school and had no financial fall-back had good options in the face of the most powerful men in the Gardai attempting to pressure her into adoption or marriage (allegedly), all the while back-channel discussions were taking place with the most powerful Catholic official in the country.

Rules are rules - righty-oh

marieholmfan

This is not news. What is being concealed by the airwaves giving space to this discussion?

Yurt!

Yurt! wrote: »

No, you're dancing on the head of pin. Making out that a young woman who grew up in an industrial school and had no financial fall-back had good options in the face of the most powerful men in the Gardai attempting to pressure her into adoption or marriage (allegedly), all the while back-channel discussions were taking place with the most powerful Catholic official in the country.

Rules are rules - righty-oh

never said good options

you're appealling to a 2019 audience on a purely emotional basis and are putting half a story forward without any reference to the agency of the woman involved.

im not going to make a smart comment about that being a dehumanising or bad feminism practice, but at the same time its transparent as an approach and repetition doesn't improve it.

Yurt2

Deleted User wrote: »

never said good options

you're appealling to a 2019 audience on a purely emotional basis and are putting half a story forward without any reference to the agency of the woman involved.

im not going to make a smart comment about that being a dehumanising or bad feminism practice, but at the same time its transparent as an approach and repetition doesn't improve it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

One eyed Jack

Yurt! wrote: »

No, you're dancing on the head of pin. Making out that a young woman who grew up in an industrial school and had no financial fall-back had good options in the face of the most powerful men in the Gardai attempting to pressure her into adoption or marriage (allegedly), all the while back-channel discussions were taking place with the most powerful Catholic official in the country.

Rules are rules - righty-oh

Yes, they are, and flouting them doesn’t make anyone a victim. Majella Moynihan was aware of the rules of AGS when she chose to join the force. She knew the esteem in which she would be held in her community. That all went tits up as a consequence of her choosing to believe that the same rules which applied to everyone in AGS, somehow didn’t apply to her. None of that has anything to do with her being educated in an industrial school. There were plenty of people educated in industrial schools who didn’t grow up to believe the law doesn’t apply to them.

She also chose to remain a member of AGS for another 15 years until she chose to leave. She lamented the fact she was the focus of media attention at the time, yet here she is again the focus of media attention claiming that she would be happy with a personal apology from the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice. She’s milking the victimhood IMO.

Yurt2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, they are, and flouting them doesn’t make anyone a victim. Majella Moynihan was aware of the rules of AGS when she chose to join the force. She knew the esteem in which she would be held in her community. That all went tits up as a consequence of her choosing to believe that the same rules which applied to everyone in AGS, somehow didn’t apply to her. None of that has anything to do with her being educated in an industrial school. There were plenty of people educated in industrial schools who didn’t grow up to believe the law doesn’t apply to them.

She also chose to remain a member of AGS for another 15 years until she chose to leave. She lamented the fact she was the focus of media attention at the time, yet here she is again the focus of media attention claiming that she would be happy with a personal apology from the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice. She’s milking the victimhood IMO.

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