Garda Apology

1641

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope
She was treated badly even by the standards of the time.
Single motherhood was not a new thing in 1984.

Single motherhood was not a new thing but it was still highly stigmatised. It was very difficult as many families did not want their single mother daughter around - so they often had to move (if they survived the family pressure to go the adoption route).

Single motherhood with career was uncommon and very difficult. Plenty of single mothers/expectant single mothers lost their jobs - not necessarily "sacked" but there were plenty of ways to pressurise people. And it wasn't just the Guards or Religious order employers.

It was a very harsh but not out of step with the mood of the country - change was happening but the prevailing attitude was still very conservative on this matter.
No denying this was difficult for this woman. But if it is apology time then lots of women from the time are owed lots of apologies. Should we all start apologising on behalf of our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, etc, etc, etc? And then for all the other practices of the 80s, 70s, 60s, etc that have been left behind.

I have no sense of nostalgia for those times at all - they were oppressive. As no doubt this one will appear to future generations. Should they apologise on behalf of us? Maybe we should have an annual "apologise on behalf of those who have gone before us" day and theme it differently every year? We could then all feel virtuous.

elperello

elperello wrote: »

Just go back and listen to the documentary again.
Then take into account the fact that both the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice have personally apologised to the woman.
It is the State and its institutions that need to learn from mistakes.

They obviously DID learn from their mistakes, hence the apologies.

elperello

Deleted User wrote: »

They obviously DID learn from their mistakes, hence the apologies.

I hope they have. Time will tell.
All the power was with the men, she was very alone.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

They obviously DID learn from their mistakes, hence the apologies.

Apologies issued after she came forward......

Hotblack Desiato

1641 wrote: »

But if it is apology time then lots of women from the time are owed lots of apologies.

They are, yes.

Damn right they are.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

Your posts go on and on about the poor abused bangarda. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, you persist in denying that the baby’s father offered to marry her and take responsibility for their child.

I never denied that. But there were other options between marriage and adoption and other gardai at the time were allowed keep their jobs while bringing up their child. Being coerced into marrying the father of your child when you'd rather not is a form of abuse in itself.

She chose adoption and is blaming the Garda bigwigs for her decision.

The garda bigwigs who pressurised her for months into signing the adoption papers, yes.

She’s not the first to regret a decision taken in her younger days. Time to move on and stop making a fool of herself. Learn from mistakes. Not dwell on them.

Mistakes like:

-- her father for putting her into a home so he could shack up with another woman
-- her 'partner' for disowning her and his son
-- her employer for treating her like sh1t and pressurising her into adoption. Then after she did that, continued to punish her despite her excellent record as a garda, on the basis of a fcuked-up catholic idea of 'morality' and a desire for revenge
-- and then even after she was punished and allowed to continue in the force, she was buliled.

If only SHE hadn't made all of those mistakes.

1641

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They are, yes.

Damn right they are.

I hereby nominate Hotblack Desiato to apologise on behalf of the past generations of the Irish for what we now recognise as their unenlightened thinking and viewpoints, their moral flaws, and for the actions that flowed from those flaws and unenlightened thinging, etc etc etc.


While you are at it you might also humbly call on future generations to apologise on behalf on this generation for all our moral flaws and unenlightened thinking, which will be all too apparent to those future generations with the advantage of hindsight.


May your humble apology and acknowledgement of our own failings free us from guilt and raise us to virtue.

You will probably need robes and some sort of pulpit.

Do you think will some sort of sacrifice be required?

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, she didn't make a 'mistake'. The two of them made a 'mistake'.

I was going to say getting pregnant was her 'mistake', but that's not it - giving birth was the real mistake, AGS would have preferred her to sneak over to England for an abortion and then nobody would have heard about any 'scandal'.

Vile stuff.

Ok then, they both made a mistake in deciding to violate the regulations of their employment knowing that they were putting their careers in jeopardy. I was talking about her mistake because she’s the person who still claims she didn’t do anything wrong. She clearly did. We don’t know does the man feel he didn’t do anything wrong because he isn’t publicly claiming he did nothing wrong.

How? Short of resigning?

By acknowledging that she made a mistake in violating the regulations of her employment. She wasn’t fired, she kept her job, and she could have kept her child like many of the other members of AGS who violated the regulations of their employment and were able to keep their jobs and their children. She chose a different path.

Wow, do you know her or something :rolleyes:

Why are you looking at what she is doing now in 2019 and projecting that back into your imaginary scenario in 1984?

Wasn't willing to let it go, what is your evidence for this sentiment and what actions did she take instead of 'letting it go'?

It's baloney.

If you’re telling me there’s no need to be a smart arse, how about you practice what you preach? No, I don’t know her and I don’t claim to know her. It was obvious I was giving my opinion based upon what we do know of her. The evidence that she wasn’t willing to let it go is that 35 years later she still claims that she did nothing wrong and that she was being punished for giving birth. No she wasn’t. She’s choosing to misrepresent the facts when it’s quite obvious that what she was being punished for was breaching her employment regulations. She was treated no differently than anyone who has breached the regulations of their employment. She can feel like she was being treated like a criminal, but given her occupation where she was responsible for upholding the law, it’s not unreasonable to suggest that she knew the difference between being treated like an adult, and being treated like a criminal.

Again. Empathy. Where is it?

Do you think victims of other sorts of abuses should just STFU as well and "get over it", too?

She's perfectly entitled to speak out, and to take whatever legal action she wants.

Well she was always entitled to speak out and take whatever legal action she wants, and in the same way as she’s entitled to do whatever she wants, I’m entitled to say I have very little sympathy for her when she decides to misrepresent the facts when she’s speaking out and looking for sympathy and apologies. There’s nothing to apologise to her for as far as I’m concerned. She did wrong, she was punished for it, and that should have been end of story. She’s decided to continue it on, bringing attention on herself again.

You may not like it but empathy isn’t something I can pretend to feel for someone I can’t empathise with. I’d be insincere if I claimed I could empathise with someone I couldn’t possibly empathise with, so how I feel about people in other circumstances will depend upon the circumstances. I don’t empathise with Paddy Jackson either for example even though he could claim he was treated like a criminal so he’s a victim just because he had sex. That would be misrepresenting the facts and so my empathy would be in short supply there too.

I don’t regard Ms. Moynihan as a victim, and I’m not going to pretend that I do because it makes me a terrible person in your eyes if I don’t pretend I can empathise with her.

Maybe not, but she was cheated out of a career and a pension and that is a substantial finacial loss, and great damage was done to her wellbeing.

Ehh, no she wasn’t cheated out of a career and a pension. She chose to remain on with AGS for another 15 years. She didn’t lose her job as a result of any disciplinary action against her, she chose to leave 15 years later. What damage was done to her well being was as a result of her own actions, I don’t blame anyone else for that.

There's no need to be a smartarse. You know I was talking about the future child - the one that he had an obligation to support should she not give it for adoption.

I wasn’t being a smartarse. You brought up my position on the 8th amendment, I was bringing up yours. Fairs fair, if you’re going to try and throw shìt in my face that doesn’t apply here, you can’t complain about the blowback. That’s similar to what Ms. Moynihan is trying to do - she chose to violate the regulations of her employment, and then she tried to point the finger at everyone else and portray herself as a victim and doesn’t appear to want to take any responsibility for the consequences of her actions. Nobody forced her to violate the terms of her employment, she chose to. The fact that it all went tits up for her doesn’t make her a victim of anyone else, in the same way as I’m not being a smartarse by responding to you in kind when you chose to bring up my position on the 8th amendment.

If you think she's a liar, why not say so instead of just constantly implying it?

You've been doing her down, blaming her, belittling her and calling her mental state then and now into question constantly.

I didn’t say it because I can’t be certain she is a liar. I’m not going to accuse someone of being a liar without having irrefutable evidence that was their intent. I’m saying her contradictory accounts present a credibility issue, which they do. I’m not suggesting she’s a liar, because I don’t think she is intentionally lying. I have been calling into question her mental state because there is plenty of evidence to call her mental state into question. That’s why I said earlier in the thread that I believe she is a vulnerable person who is being manipulated by other people to push their political agenda. I’m not blaming her for anything she isn’t responsible for. If she chooses to go ahead with her legal action and that goes tits up too and she still doesn’t get the outcome she was hoping for, that still doesn’t make her a victim either.

But he refused to.

As I said, I’d rather hear that from the man himself. I’m not just going to take her word for it as it’s a pretty serious accusation.

There's a big difference between £90 and dismissal. Both committed the same act. The difference is that one ejaculated, the other gave birth.

No, the difference is that we know Ms. Moynihan doesn’t want to take any responsibility for her actions, and we don’t know anything about him, but you’ve been doing him down, belittling him, blaming him and calling him a moral degenerate when you don’t even know him. I don’t know you either, but I don’t have to know you to see that you’re choosing to believe Ms. Moynihan’s account of events because it fits with everything else you already believe about Irish society at the time, in spite of factual evidence which contradicts what you choose to believe about this particular case.

riemann

RTE pushing this story, hard.

Its not as if there is a shortage of genuine news stories this week.

Edgware

The dogs may bark but the caravans still roll on.

Hotblack Desiato

1641 wrote: »

I hereby nominate Hotblack Desiato to apologise on behalf of the past generations of the Irish for what we now recognise as their unenlightened thinking and viewpoints, their moral flaws, and for the actions that flowed from those flaws and unenlightened thinging, etc etc etc.

Well as any catholic priest would say, the first step to redemption is acknowledging one's failings

While you are at it you might also humbly call on future generations to apologise on behalf on this generation for all our moral flaws and unenlightened thinking, which will be all too apparent to those future generations with the advantage of hindsight.

That is something we can and should be thinking about, actually. If you think everything is perfect you're (a) deluded and (b) not going to improve

May your humble apology and acknowledgement of our own failings free us from guilt and raise us to virtue.

You will probably need robes and some sort of pulpit.

Do you think will some sort of sacrifice be required?

A modest 10% of your income will do grand. Thanks. Blessings!

1641

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That is something we can and should be thinking about, actually. If you think everything is perfect you're (a) deluded and (b) not going to improve

Nowhere is perfect anytime, anywhere. We can only keep an openness to our imperfections and hope to improve.


But we do not know what the generation 35 years into the future will see as our imperfections. You seem to assume that they are the same thing tht you currently regard as our imperfections. We don't know that at all. Values will change - how and in what way we don't know. They may feel the need to apologise for the very values that you cherish. All we can do is do the best as we see it today. If the people of more conservative values who dominated in 1984 went in Rip Van Winkle mode then, and reawoke today, they would be astonished at how life and values have changed.

Hotblack Desiato

You have no reason to believe the majority of the public (or even AGS senior officers) were on board in 1984 with what happened to her, though.

This was an extreme outcome even then.

Didn't help that the commissioner Laurence Wren took a personal interest in her case (there was no justification for this whatsoever) and he was a daily massgoer.

Hotblack Desiato

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was talking about her mistake because she’s the person who still claims she didn’t do anything wrong. She clearly did.

She didn't do anything wrong.

She wasn’t fired, she kept her job, and she could have kept her child like many of the other members of AGS who violated the regulations of their employment and were able to keep their jobs and their children. She chose a different path.

As has been pointed out to you several times -

She only barely kept her job (after the personal intervention of an archbishop with the commissioner)
Others were not charged with disciplinary offences for having sex or giving birth.
She had no support whatsoever from her family or the father of the child.
She was harassed and pressurised for months by senior garda officers to sign the final adoption papers.
She had no real choice other than giving up her job and bringing up a child in poverty.

She’s choosing to misrepresent the facts when it’s quite obvious that what she was being punished for was breaching her employment regulations. She was treated no differently than anyone who has breached the regulations of their employment.

That is absolutely untrue, other unmarried mothers in the force were not punished.

And afaik there was no specific regulation about having sex, she was charged with a catch-all 'disrepute' bullsh!t charge.

I’m entitled to say I have very little sympathy for her when she decides to misrepresent the facts when she’s speaking out and looking for sympathy and apologies.

The only part of her story which has changed is that while being interrrogated she said she was not put under pressure to sign the adoption papers. She had a very good reason at the time to say that. Even in very recent years we have seen AGS ruin the lives and careers of members who stood up against the wrongdoing of senior officers.

Ehh, no she wasn’t cheated out of a career and a pension. She chose to remain on with AGS for another 15 years. She didn’t lose her job as a result of any disciplinary action against her

:rolleyes: She would have if the archbishop hadn't personally intervened with the commissioner. He wanted her gone.

she chose to leave 15 years later. What damage was done to her well being was as a result of her own actions, I don’t blame anyone else for that.

She was harassed and bullied by senior officers even after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. When she left, they put on her records that she was retiring on medical grounds due to 'mental incapacity'. They were cnuts to her even then.

I didn’t say it because I can’t be certain she is a liar.

Yet you're happy to continually imply that she is.

manipulated by other people to push their political agenda.

You have no evidence whatsoever for this and there is no political gain to be made from this. It's a terrible story which needed to be told.

but you’ve been doing him down, belittling him, blaming him and calling him a moral degenerate when you don’t even know him.

I have no reason to doubt anything that she said, and his actions were not unusual but nonetheless immoral.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You have no reason to believe the majority of the public (or even AGS senior officers) were on board in 1984 with what happened to her, though.

This was an extreme outcome even then.

Didn't help that the commissioner Laurence Wren took a personal interest in her case (there was no justification for this whatsoever) and he was a daily massgoer.

You can’t seem to make up your mind whether the majority of Irish society did what they did because they were told to by “celibate” men, or whether you’re actually willing now to admit that people had minds of their own.

No justification for the Garda Commissioner to be involved in what became a national scandal? He was no friend of the political establishment either -

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/obituary-larry-wren-34534992.html

Fcukall to do with him being a daily massgoer, and everything to do with the fact that he didn’t tolerate the AGS being discredited by anyone who thought the rules that applied to everyone, didn’t apply to them.

Hotblack Desiato

The majority kept their heads down, the RCC has always only needed a small number of influential/powerful people to keep the rest in line. Opus Dei, Knights of Columbanus, etc.

By 1984, "unmarried mother's allowance" had been around for over ten years. Public attitudes were changing, the iron grip of the church was loosening, and you have no basis to claim that an officer having sex was bringing the force into disrepute.

Of course, the guys in charge were still the 1920s generation. Similarly to how politicians were 10-20 years behind the public's opinion on abortion.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The majority kept their heads down, the RCC has always only needed a small number of influential/powerful people to keep the rest in line. Opus Dei, Knights of Columbanus, etc.

By 1984, "unmarried mother's allowance" had been around for over ten years. Public attitudes were changing, the iron grip of the church was loosening, and you have no basis to claim that an officer having sex was bringing the force into disrepute.

Of course, the guys in charge were still the 1920s generation. Similarly to how politicians were 10-20 years behind the public's opinion on abortion.

For a minute there I thought we were getting closer to reality with your acknowledgment that attitudes in Irish society towards unmarried mothers were more nuanced than you first made out, but then you retreat back to the same argument you came out with earlier.

Of course I have a basis for claiming that an unmarried mother would bring discredit upon the force, because that was the prevailing attitude in Irish society at the time, pretty much the same attitude that prevails in Irish society today with regard to unmarried mothers and y’know the usual crap about how they’re only becoming pregnant for the free house. Some people are even of the opinion that we’ve created a monster, apparently -

I met a homeless Mother on the street

You sure you still want to maintain that attitude has anything to do with the Catholicism, 1920’s generation guys in charge, or the public’s opinions on abortion?

It has nothing to do with any of those things, and everything to do with the fact that the vast majority of people even nowadays who consider themselves “progressive” look down upon people living in poverty as a drain on “the taxpayer”, and there’s plenty of people who suggest that abortion is the solution to rid “civilised” society of undesirables.

You don’t appear to want to acknowledge either that the public’s opinions on abortion are more nuanced than you’re making out in your above post either, especially when the number of GP’s who are willing to provide abortion services are still in a minority in Irish society, with 85% of GP’s of the opinion that abortion is not part of routine general practice -

'Abortion is not part of routine general practice. 85% of GPs are of this opinion'

It appears as though anyone who doesn’t share your opinions are out of step with Irish society in 2019, and yet, your opinions are very much in the minority in Irish society when we actually look at Irish society as a whole.

1641

Attached clip from a Gay Byrne radio interview from 1986 with an unmarried mother and Cherish representative gives some flavour of the general attitude of the public, even then (and thing were changing throughout the 80s) :
https://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/2112-gay-byrne/633846-unmarried-mothers-in-ireland/

Beechwoodspark

Just on that commissioner of the guards

His son in law was on live line the other day ferociously defending him and denying he was involved in this.

Bobtheman

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They were mostly concerned with what their families, friends and neighbours would think of them.

And WHY would their families, friends or neighbours think badly of them if they were having sex or getting pregnant? Because the church was telling them what to think, and these people were stupid enough to listen to 'celibate' men in dresses pontificating on sex. Some rejected these notions, but most did not.

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.

She also said that nun left and after that things went very badly for her for the rest of her time in that place, so not all the nuns treated her well.

She wasn’t treated any more unfairly than anyone else in her circumstances.

Unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.

As if every other garda who was not either a virgin or an exclusively faithful spouse was disciplined.

Her "crime" was to produce proof of her "indiscretion" - by having a baby.

But even then, she was treated much more unfairly than other unmarried female gardai at the time who were allowed keep both their baby and their job.

She was continually pressurised by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers. Then she was charged, interrogated in detail about her private life, and almost sacked.

Not to metion that the male party to this "crime" was merely fined, and not threatened with the sack.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

He offered to marry her, but when she refused (she says she had never intended to marry him, and remember, no divorce then - and it says a lot about him that he asked her father before he mentioned the idea of marriage to her) he didn't offer any financial or emotional support whatsoever and basically told her to f*** off, not giving a damn about his own child never mind her.

I suppose you're going to blame her for his being such an irresponsible callous cnut, too...

I'm not sure of your agenda here. The male asked her father for her hand in marriage. A pretty typical thing in Irish society at the time.
As to whether other guards were disciplined or not who knows.
It was the morality at the time.
There were double standards at the time. Women carried the can as they often still do.
Anybody with sense would know we are only getting her side of the story -30 years later. We have not got the father's side.

Bobtheman

Modern liberals safe in numbers wage war on event when most of them were not alive.
I have more time for conservative miniority who question liberal majority today on their orthodoxy. Or the liberal miniority at the time.
There is lots to question- sexual morality, social media , 99 forms of sexuality-most of them bull****, excessive materialism , have as many abortions as you like,mulit culturalism etc etc