Ann Lovett case - 30 years

Obviously, there's a lot of us off topic (or maybe not??) at this stage in terms of the thread title (including me).

No bad thing as there is a richness and historical aspect to your (our) posts- so mods, before berating us all with your ban hammers and multicoloured cards (which you haven't threatened, in fairness) , please read on.


I really, really, don't want to stop the flow of experiences here on this thread as they're related to a time - and are also placing in context the horrible events outlined in the OP. I think this thread is becoming educational for a lot of AH people, many/most of which didn't live when the events of the OP took place.

I don't want to disrespect anyone personally associated with the thread topic in anyway- I'm also conscious of AH forum rules.

But the thread reminds me of The Gay Byrne Hour where people wrote in with their own experiences of something related to a discussion/feature outlined on his radio show- a LOT of posters have come on board with such experiences or just general thoughts on what early 80's live was like in Ireland.

Not all the posts relating to experiences in the 80's by boardsies' posted over the last few days are "pleasant" to read- but they are accurate. I know that, because I lived in the 80's. I'd like this thread to continue with such posts.

Maybe that's not practical, but I do like, overall, what this thread topic is generating, in terms of posts by boardsies familiar with growing up in the 80s.

gozunda

splinter65 wrote: »

The nuns and the brothers operated the institutions exactly as the people and the government wanted them operated at the time.
It was horrible cruel unforgivable and unfathomable.
But everyone knew, and no one objected.
For some reason , people don’t want to accept this but it’s true.

To paraphrase that -

"The guards and personnel operated the gulags of the former USSR exactly as the people and the government wanted them operated at the time. It was horrible cruel unforgivable and unfathomable. But everyone knew, and no one objected. For some reason , people don’t want to accept this but it’s true."

You omited the overreaching and absolute dominant position of the rcc at that time. Few if any stood against it - those that did tended to be destroyed.

The proposed Mother and Baby scheme of 1947 as championed by Dr Noel Browne - the then Minister for health - exemplifies this setup quite well. The bill designed to provide healthcare for mothers and their children - invoked the wrath of the catholic Archbishop of Dublin, John Charles McQuaid,

The Archbhisop "summoned Browne to his palace and read out a letter to be sent to the Taoiseach, John A. Costello, penned by Dr. James Staunton, Bishop of Ferns, which contained, "...they [the Archbishops and bishops] feel bound by their office to consider whether the proposals are in accordance with Catholic moral teaching," and, "Doctors trained in institutions in which we have no confidence may be appointed as medical officers ... and may give gynaecological care not in accordance with Catholic principles."*

We are still living with that particular legacy to this day

See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme

mariaalice

The posters projecting on to the sad case is interesting along with the hysterical sope opera view of it all, Ireland in the 1980s was not full of ignorant troglodytes a place where women were in constant fear of abuse, incest, and pregnancy.

The was an entitlement culture around groping and an entitlement culture around alcohol, a different view of family life.

The cover-up was probably the beginning of the last gasps of a very powerful church.

It was a sad case of two young people both from dysfunctional backgrounds which in today's society would be handled differently with the involvement of social workers, it was not some technicolor soap opera.

Thanks to the posters who have shared their knowledge of life in Ireland in 1984. I know some of the worst stories sound alien to people who have only positive memories, but both kinds of experiences can coexist in the same society.

It's just so....recent. That's what strikes me. We're not talking about 100 years ago where the attitudes and Church control spoken of here would be understandable. That's what I'm finding hard to really grasp.

baldbear

My father was in school in the 30s in Granard & his school mate who he went to school every day lived with his grandparents. His parents were unmarried & no one passed any remarks. The church didn't get involved. That story always stuck with me when he told it.

Roll forward to 1988-89 & i think , i was in primary school & someone wrote SEX on the blackboard & the boys in class giggled. I didn't know what the word meant but knew it could get you in trouble.

That evening i wrote SEX in my 6 year olds homework book & thought nothing of it.

The next day my sister arrived home in tears.Balling her eyes out. The teacher in her class saw it & interrogated her intensely roaring at her to reveal where she saw or heard that word.

As an adult i can't believe the way sexgate was handled for me and my sis.

dense

splinter65 wrote: »

I suppose they want to believe the more soap opera dramatic version of what was in fact a rather mundane ordinary existence that we had.
The other thing is that I remover being much happier as a teenager in the early 80s then teenagers appear to be now, having a girl of 20 myself, despite apparently being terrorized intimidated and apparently cowed into submission by the agents of the state!

I have the same overall memories of growing up in the 80s, but there was a lot going on that was probably shielded from us back then, some really strange state cases involving sex, the church and gardai, the Kerry babies case I remember hearing about, but also remember being shielded from it, the only source of information was RTE, TV or radio and the daily paper.

Any of those were easily controlled by parents.
And maybe that was no bad thing, to allow a certain ignorance/innocence pervade whilst in our young teenage years.

Are todays kids "too well up" on everything and carrying heavy mental loads as a result of this ability of knowing everything at much younger ages? Sometimes it seems like it.

Another example of a bizarre state case was that of the teacher in New Ross sacked for having a child out of wedlock.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/eileen-flynn-teacher-sacked-in-1982-dies-1.937690?mode=amp

Mrsmum

mariaalice wrote: »

Getting pregnant while not married was seen as a bit of disaster alright and people got variable responses from their parents, but this idea that teenagers and woman lived in constant terror and that their whole lives were dominated by this is not the way it was.

My granny's line was that the man who got you pregnant outside marriage had zero respect for you and would leave you holding the baby for sure and certain and no other man would want you (marry you) either so you'd end up a pityful object of charity for the rest of your days. To make matters worse no 'dacent' man would want your sisters either, such was the stain on the family. Same line from the nuns at school.

valoren

I grew up in the 80's and it was a common threat from my mother that if we were being bold that if we continued to be bold that she would send us down to the Good Shepherd's convent permanently. That she would drag us down and leave us there with the Nuns. In effect, we faced the prospect of getting punished by being sent to a facility, the facilitators of which, publically prescribed love, forgiving and understanding but also had a distinct fog of fear and despair. My mother deemng that as an appropriate means of disciplining us by fostering such fears strongly suggests to me that people knew full well what these places were like and that there were places to expressly punish blackguarding children and unmarried mothers.

Glass fused light

Mrsmum wrote: »

My granny's line was that the man who got you pregnant outside marriage had zero respect for you and would leave you holding the baby for sure and certain and no other man would want you (marry you) either so you'd end up a pityful object of charity for the rest of your days. To make matters worse no 'dacent' man would want your sisters either, such was the stain on the family. Same line from the nuns at school.

People tend to forget that women were not entitled to vote until the 20's and the women's contribution to independance had largely been ignored in history classes. The first sons got the land the rest a profession/trade or immigrated while the daughters got married or immigrated. The Social change of women moving out into the workforce brought on by ww1 would have been limited and ww2 missed Ireland. Women were still expected to leave a job on marriage partly to allow the men to support their wives and families. Even the constitution written in the 30's defines a very different Ireland. The change each generation has seen and the change in social values each accepted or rejected and worked to achieve is sometimes hard to understand by those who did not grow up under it's influence.

In your grannys day having a baby was a serious risk. Marriage was for life and most people want a 'faithful' partner because you were stuck with them either way. In the 40s and 50's poverty was rife and work houses existed i think up until the early 1920's, education after 13 was expensive, and most went for a trade. There was no access to contraception until the end of the 70's and that was for 'married' people and by prescription. Women had very limited employment prospects and would lose a 'respectable' position. Married women would have seen her as a risk too as most ended with large families and were financially dependent on a husband. Ireland was mainly agri and factory, roles were being replaced by mechanisation and cheep imports. Unmarried sexually active women were extremely vulnerable to abuse from men who would have classed her as fair game, society is still working that one out. Sexual assaults only happened to women who were 'asking for it' by doing things like walking down a street. But the family (community as a whole) would react to a male crossing the line too, you did not mess with someones sister. Remember for most, even in large towns the family network was there. But in the 80's Ann was at additional risk from neglect. An assumption that it had to be her father or a priest involved in an attack reflects current abuse reports. In the 80's women were still economically at risk, their children were legally bastards up until 87/88 with no inheritance rights from the father, and if their family did not help they could end up in a poverty trap.

For most it was not all bad, they were just the rules you grew up with. You knew the rules and the risks of breaking them. The problem was if the family was malfunctioning it was harder to get support. And of course the attitudes to sex left some childern and adults in a vulnerable position with no support at all.

Electric Sheep

Glass fused light wrote: »

Unmarried sexually active women were extremely vulnerable to abuse from men who would have classed her as fair game, society is still working that one out.

This was sometimes expressed by men as "A slice won't be missed from a cut loaf". If you were known to have had sex, some men presumed you would have it with any man.

mariaalice

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/how-the-brain-drain-hit-ireland-in-the-80s-26506538.html.

This is might interest some, on balance we do have a better society today for women, but I still think some of the lurid ideas people have are slightly ridiculous.

spaceHopper

Really surprised that this is not a bigger story, I know the news is full of the cervical cancer scandal. But this is a case where a 15 year old and a baby dies. There's a good chance that she was raped. The church kept taps on what was going on and actively covered it up. It looks like the government and Guards were part of that cover up too. I was looking at a copy of the Sunday Independent and it a small article on page 8.


Fair play to her boy friend for coming forward now, it must have been very hard on him at the time and since - hope he gets closer and she gets justice.

What was in the second letter and who was it for?

Dakota Dan

spaceHopper wrote: »

Really surprised that this is not a bigger story, I know the news is full of the cervical cancer scandal. But this is a case where a 15 year old and a baby dies. There's a good chance that she was raped. The church kept taps on what was going on and actively covered it up. It looks like the government and Guards were part of that cover up too. I was looking at a copy of the Sunday Independent and it a small article on page 8.


Fair play to her boy friend for coming forward now, it must have been very hard on him at the time and since - hope he gets closer and she gets justice.

What was in the second letter and who was it for?

The boy friend who was 16 having sex with a minor. She came to him when she was in trouble and he did nothing other than saying they drifted apart. Fair play to him alright :rolleyes:

Neyite

Dakota Dan wrote: »

The boy friend who was 16 having sex with a minor. She came to him when she was in trouble and he did nothing other than saying they drifted apart. Fair play to him alright :rolleyes:

They were both underage.

Dakota Dan

Neyite wrote: »

They were both underage.

Back then the age of consent was 16, he was 16 she was 14.

Neyite

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Back then the age of consent was 16, he was 16 she was 14.

No, Ireland has had the age of consent at 17 since 1935.

sabat

Under the law at the time he would be automatically considered a rapist although for whatever reason the IT presented the "relationship" as Home Alone meets The Blue Lagoon.

volchitsa

sabat wrote: »

Under the law at the time he would be automatically considered a rapist although for whatever reason the IT presented the "relationship" as Home Alone meets The Blue Lagoon.

He can't be considered a rapist if both were under the age of consent and there was apparently no element of force.

Daisy78

Thank goodness the country has come on so much and such attitudes no longer exist. It seems like a different planet altogether, that people would get so worked up by a woman having a little baby seems unfathomable.

Dakota Dan

Daisy78 wrote: »

Thank goodness the country has come on so much and such attitudes no longer exist. It seems like a different planet altogether, that people would get so worked up by a woman having a little baby seems unfathomable.

How exactly did people get worked up? What were they supposed to do? Some say nobody knew she was pregnant the others say the whole town knew she was pregnant, what exactly were they supposed to do, keep a 24 hour vigil on her? What about the boy friend that abandoned her, what have you to say about him?

Glass fused light

volchitsa wrote: »

He can't be considered a rapist if both were under the age of consent and there was apparently no element of force.

He had sex with a 14 year old girl she had no legal capacity to consent until she was 17 so force was not relevant. Under the  legislation in force at the time, section 1 of the 1935 Act, it did not matter what age he was, legally he was a rapist. There is no statue of limitation and as far as I am aware, post 2006, and the new legislation it's currently totally at the discretion of the DPP as to  whether or not they prosecute a 16 year old male for sex with a 14 year old female.

Daisy78 wrote: »

Thank goodness the country has come on so much and such attitudes no longer exist. It seems like a different planet altogether, that people would get so worked up by a woman having a little baby seems unfathomable.

Thank goodness we have come so far that we no longer get worked up when 14 year old children are have babies.  

Dakota Dan

volchitsa wrote: »

He can't be considered a rapist if both were under the age of consent and there was apparently no element of force.

That law didn't come until 2017 if there were a 2 year age gap or less, it was different in 1984. Somehow I have a problem accepting that this man is 51 he looks more like 57/58. at the time Ann's parents were concerned that she had a boyfriend several years older than her and wanted her to stop seeing him.

Daisy78

Glass fused light wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

He can't be considered a rapist if both were under the age of consent and there was apparently no element of force.

He had sex with a 14 year old girl she had no legal capacity to consent until she was 17 so force was not relevant. Under the  legislation in force at the time, section 1 of the 1935 Act, it did not matter what age he was, legally he was a rapist. There is no statue of limitation and as far as I am aware, post 2006, and the new legislation it's currently totally at the discretion of the DPP as to  whether or not they prosecute a 16 year old male for sex with a 14 year old female.

Daisy78 wrote: »

Thank goodness the country has come on so much and such attitudes no longer exist. It seems like a different planet altogether, that people would get so worked up by a woman having a little baby seems unfathomable.

Thank goodness we have come so far that we no longer get worked up when 14 year old children are have babies.  

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Daisy78 wrote: »

Thank goodness the country has come on so much and such attitudes no longer exist. It seems like a different planet altogether, that people would get so worked up by a woman having a little baby seems unfathomable.

How exactly did people get worked up? What were they supposed to do? Some say nobody knew she was pregnant the others say the whole town knew she was pregnant, what exactly were they supposed to do, keep a 24 hour vigil on her? What about the boy friend that abandoned her, what have you to say about him?

Jesus relax. I was talking about women having babies outside of marriage in general, not specifically the Lovett case.

Daisy78

Glass fused light wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

He can't be considered a rapist if both were under the age of consent and there was apparently no element of force.

He had sex with a 14 year old girl she had no legal capacity to consent until she was 17 so force was not relevant. Under the  legislation in force at the time, section 1 of the 1935 Act, it did not matter what age he was, legally he was a rapist. There is no statue of limitation and as far as I am aware, post 2006, and the new legislation it's currently totally at the discretion of the DPP as to  whether or not they prosecute a 16 year old male for sex with a 14 year old female.

Daisy78 wrote: »

Thank goodness the country has come on so much and such attitudes no longer exist. It seems like a different planet altogether, that people would get so worked up by a woman having a little baby seems unfathomable.

Thank goodness we have come so far that we no longer get worked up when 14 year old children are have babies.  

??? Where did I mention 14 year olds having a baby?

Daisy78

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Daisy78 wrote: »

Jesus relax. I was talking about women having babies outside of marriage in general, not specifically the Lovett case.

What are you on about daisy? I wasn't even quoting you, ease off the drink.

Ehh you did, post above!!

Glass fused light

Daisy78 wrote: »

??? Where did I mention 14 year olds having a baby?

Do you remember what you were doing at 20:26 this evening?

Daisy78

Glass fused light wrote: »

Daisy78 wrote: »

??? Where did I mention 14 year olds having a baby?

Do you remember what you were doing at 20:26 this evening?

You are referring to my post. Where I said that it is was great that soceity doesn't have an issue with women having children outside of marriage. I didnt mention anything about teenagers.

Glass fused light

Daisy78 wrote: »

You are referring to my post. Where I said that it is was great that soceity doesn't have an issue with women having children outside of marriage. I didnt mention anything about teenagers.

That may be what you think you said, but it is not what you typed.

Daisy78

Glass fused light wrote: »

Daisy78 wrote: »

You are referring to my post. Where I said that it is was great that soceity doesn't have an issue with women having children outside of marriage. I didnt mention anything about teenagers.

That may be what you think you said, but it is not what you typed.

Okay please explain to me then. What is your issue with my post exactly?

Glass fused light

Daisy78 wrote: »

Okay please explain to me then. What is your issue with my post exactly?

Context, in regards to the thread, the 80's and today, the age of conception, the age she died.

Daisy78 wrote: »

Thank goodness the country has come on so much and such attitudes no longer exist. It seems like a different planet altogether, that people would get so worked up by a woman, Ann Lovett, having a little baby seems unfathomable.