Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.

Solicitor asked to remove underwear....

135

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,428 ✭✭✭ PCeeeee


    Maybe you do. I don't.

    Like I said, I hope she sues the arse out of them, and gets a very large settlement.

    It's disgusting how many posters here are trying to make out she is just an annoying little woman making a big fuss over nothing.

    We obviously haven't come very far.

    Far enough for you to have faith in the legal system it would appear.


  • Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The crux of this is that a male solicitor got a pass in the same circumstances. Why the double standard? Rule should be applied universally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 47,622 ✭✭✭✭ tayto lover


    Go back to your cave. You're obviously not evolved enough to leave it yet.

    You’re losing when you’re abusing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,305 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    nullzero wrote: »
    Goddamn Patriarchy at it again I see.

    Was it the matriarchy that got her in when she should've been turned away?




  • You’re losing when you’re abusing.
    nullzero wrote: »
    Get over yourself.

    I notice you didn't apply the same standard to Nullzero.

    Double standards everywhere on this thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,305 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    Reading this thread people seem to think it would be normal practice for women to have to remove their underwear to pass through security?

    :confused:

    It's common enough that there's a song that references it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,964 ✭✭✭✭ nullzero


    I notice you didn't apply the same standard to Nullzero.

    Double standards everywhere on this thread.

    You made a preposterous set of statements, one of which was that you didn't need any evidence to make a determination. Saying get over yourself is a fair comment in that situation.

    You were openly abusive to me, your post contained nothing but abuse, no counter arguments, just abuse.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,305 ✭✭✭ The J Stands for Jay


    The crux of this is that a male solicitor got a pass in the same circumstances. Why the double standard? Rule should be applied universally.

    The article doesn't say how he managed to get in. Perhaps he decided not to bring in the knife and heroin he had hidden on his person.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,014 ✭✭✭ OU812


    Obviously not the case here but a bra holster is a real thing - google it, images are kinda SFW.

    The underwire could be used as a weapon or as an aerial for communications. She's an ambulance chaser


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,533 ✭✭✭ FishOnABike


    If that is so why didn't these strict rules apply to the male when he kept setting off the sensor?

    It is not clear from the article whether her male colleague was previously admitted with alarms still sounding. He may have had to pass through three times with the alarm sounding on one occasion before resolving the cause and being admitted , he may have passed through on three occasions when the alarm sounded and had to resolve the cause before being admitted.

    For a profession where exactly what one says can be so important, the wording very vague. It is unclear if he had to repeatedly go through the scanner until it failed to sound before being admitted. Whether it is the fault of the solicitor it reporter, what is not said is often as if not more important than what is said. Both professions are well used to manipulating words to an agenda.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 1,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The article doesn't say how he managed to get in. Perhaps he decided not to bring in the knife and heroin he had hidden on his person.


    Or perhaps security let him in because they are in on a widescreen TV smuggling operation and needed an excuse to hold her up. Who knows?



    But apply your procedures fairly. They'll need a good reason for the double standard, (if true of course) IMO.




  • nullzero wrote: »
    You made a preposterous set of statements, one of which was that you didn't need any evidence to make a determination. Saying get over yourself is a fair comment in that situation.

    You were openly abusive to me, your post contained nothing but abuse, no counter arguments, just abuse.

    Then report it.

    Or maybe take your own advice and get over yourself, if you're so upset by my "abuse".

    I honestly wonder if posters would be so flippant about this if it was their own mother, wife or daughter that was humiliated in this way.

    And yes, I'd be quite happy to see my tax contributions go towards a large settlement if she does take a case, which I hope she does.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Metal detectors assist security in finding forbidden objects. There isn't a blanket ban on metal.

    Find a different way of confirming its a wire in her underwear in a more dignified manner. A female officer doing a check - anything other than what happened.

    I may be out of touch here but how is being felt up by a female officer more dignified than being allowed remove your own underwear in private?

    Its a male prison by the way, not a lot of the staff are female. It may be a case that there was a delay in a female officer attending. You may think thats absurd but in AGS it happens all the time that you need the only female Garda on duty to return from whatever they are doing to search a female prisoner. (albeit as its a prisoner, we dont allow them into the toilet to strip or remove clothing). The male officers may have given an alternative option to waiting and being delayed.

    again, until we hear all sides and infor, we simple dont know


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,153 ✭✭✭ irelandrover


    Or perhaps security let him in because they are in on a widescreen TV smuggling operation and needed an excuse to hold her up. Who knows?



    But apply your procedures fairly. They'll need a good reason for the double standard, (if true of course) IMO.

    What double standard? The story as it is in the article.

    1. woman sets off scanner, is asked to take action to correct it, woman is then allowed into the prison.
    2. man sets off scanner, *scene missing as its not quoted in the article what happened*, man is then allowed into the prison.


    without knowing what action the man was required to take, how can you possibly say there is a double standard?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Then report it.

    Or maybe take your own advice and get over yourself, if you're so upset by my "abuse".

    I honestly wonder if posters would be so flippant about this if it was their own mother, wife or daughter that was humiliated in this way.

    And yes, I'd be quite happy to see my tax contributions go towards a large settlement if she does take a case, which I hope she does.

    Are you related to this woman in some way and are basing your anger on more than just a news report from a random stranger? and again, my daughter has been searched in the airport.

    My wife as well and my mother. Only my mother took issue over it and it was the not the search that she was annoyed with


  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ ClosedAccountFuzzy


    There are a lot of issues she could very legitimately and probably should, for the sake of upholding rights, pursue in this, including what might be construed as interfering with a solicitor accessing their client, or harassing a solicitor while attempting to do so.

    There is a strong legal protection of the ability to access a solicitor and it’s very much facilitated in even the most secure prison scenarios with potentially high risk prisoners.

    I’m not sure how asking a lawyer to remove her bra is in anyway appropriate. It’s real tin pot dictatorship territory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 653 ✭✭✭ Skyrimaddict


    It's an attention grab article to show how " un-woke" people are.

    Solicitors going to prison to visit a client should tell us a lot about her type.
    At the end of the day, if your profession is to go to the prison, you know what to wear and not wear.
    I did a construction job at the airports before and within 2 days you knew what to wear going in and what not to wear, it was that simple.

    And for anyone saying " oh but it was her bra could they not have wanded it and said on your way"
    Any fool who says this obviously has no understanding of prison systems or how smuggling goes on. Drugs are hidden in sh1tty nappies on going in so guards wont check, phones hidden in every hole, drugs in bags in the vagina or anus, razor blades hidden in bras wiring, underwear etc.
    Once heard tell of a guy with a fake hand going into the prison to visit his son, took massive offence to being asked to take the hand off. Turns out thing was full of drugs and one of those mini phones.



    yes, an airport you can do the same with bombs etc


  • Registered Users Posts: 745 ✭✭✭ ClosedAccountFuzzy


    Most women wear bras a most bras have underwires.

    There’s something seriously odd with the whole process. Even in the harshest US prisons the lawyers don’t have to wear metal-free jump suits when visiting.

    Formal clothing also has zippers, clasps, etc most of which are metal.

    Something seriously up with that process.




  • Are you related to this woman in some way and are basing your anger on more than just a news report from a random stranger? and again, my daughter has been searched in the airport.

    My wife as well and my mother. Only my mother took issue over it and it was the not the search that she was annoyed with

    So I have to be related to someone to be angered at their mistreatment?

    But for the record, no, I am not related to her.

    What angers me is that so many are being so offhand and flippant about this, and their immediate response to what this woman described as an upsetting and traumatic experience was to go straight in and immediately attack her character and mock her. Blaming and shaming the victim at its finest.

    Its utterly disgusts me. I am now stepping away for the sake of my own blood pressure.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,964 ✭✭✭✭ nullzero


    Then report it.

    Or maybe take your own advice and get over yourself, if you're so upset by my "abuse".

    I honestly wonder if posters would be so flippant about this if it was their own mother, wife or daughter that was humiliated in this way.

    And yes, I'd be quite happy to see my tax contributions go towards a large settlement if she does take a case, which I hope she does.

    Get over yourself means to remove your own personal feelings from the equation. You abandoned logic in favor of emotionally charged rhetoric.

    You were abusive towards me and I did report it. I have offered an explanation of why I used the term "get over yourself" and why I used it. You are seemingly satisfied that you were justified in your abusive behavior.

    You may be happy to foot the bill for a settlement in this situation but few would agree with you.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement


  • Kimbot wrote: »
    Incident happened on June 11th last year, so at the start of all the covid stuff. Maybe the officers had direction that they couldnt pat down people entering due to covid restrictions etc.......

    Think this is probably a key point. In other times the male colleague probably would have had a quick pat down and be sent on through, with Covid though, presumably physical contact was kept to a minimum. The article is poorly written to not address when the male colleague was let through imo.

    It's also worth pointing out the prison service did very well (afaik?) at keeping Covid out of the prisons, so they probably did take physical procedures seriously.

    Anyhow, (perhaps bizarrely) law is full of situations which determine what you can and can't wear (I've seen solicitors sent out of Court for not wearing suit jackets in Court on hot days for example). The big law firms have dress codes etc.

    If she has any cop-on she'll adjust her clothing accordingly.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So I have to be related to someone to be angered at their mistreatment?

    But for the record, no, I am not related to her.

    What angers me is that so many are being so offhand and flippant about this, and their immediate response to what this woman described as an upsetting and traumatic experience was to go straight in and immediately attack her character and mock her. Blaming and shaming the victim at its finest.

    Its utterly disgusts me. I am now stepping away for the sake of my own blood pressure.

    You are so angry you cant read straight.

    I asked IF you were connected to her as you are telling us to consider our relatives. Why? She is not related any of us including you it seems.

    I asked IF you had additional information from this woman that the article did not contain. Again possible as a result of knowing her. Again it appears that you do not posess any additional knowledge on the subject.

    So, you have condemned all those men based on a one sided article written entirely based on the information provided by the woman? A woman who leaked the information to begin with, has engaged in a PR battle that her own occupation knows is a problem in taking legal action and has already condemned the IPS response and investigation before its concluded. A woman who, by profession, would absolutely go after anyone that did the same thing to one of her clients and their right to a fair and impartial trial.

    You have both presumed guilt, committed sexism and allowed anger to cloud your judgement in one go.


  • Posts: 18,752 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    People are taken for searches in airports because of the metal detector going off. My 6 year old was.

    No one sees the women taking their bras off except the female officer searching her and no one saw this lady taking her bra off either.

    Its a prison and it has strict rules that apply to us all. Jesus, yourself and myself cant even get in half the time

    I am a woman, and I have been taken in for searches in the airport.
    Noone asks you to take off your bra.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    There are a lot of issues she could very legitimately and probably should, for the sake of upholding rights, pursue in this, including what might be construed as interfering with a solicitor accessing their client, or harassing a solicitor while attempting to do so.

    There is a strong legal protection of the ability to access a solicitor and it’s very much facilitated in even the most secure prison scenarios with potentially high risk prisoners.

    I’m not sure how asking a lawyer to remove her bra is in anyway appropriate. It’s real tin pot dictatorship territory.

    So just let them into a secure facility then? Carrying whatever they choose to? YOu know theres been documented cases of solicitors provided illegal items to clients in both prison and Garda custody right?

    Also, just so everyone is on the same page. Gardai and prison staff are subject to restricted access and searches as well.




  • bubblypop wrote: »
    I am a woman, and I have been taken in for searches in the airport.
    Noone asks you to take off your bra.

    I known plenty of people who visited relatives/parthners in jail...

    This isnt common practice for all prisions,never heard tell of this....if it was it would raise hell in jails


    Something more at play here,surely easist solution is an apology from the prision?


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I am a woman, and I have been taken in for searches in the airport.
    Noone asks you to take off your bra.

    I know the first part and the second part proves my point. Further intervention does indeed happen. FYI customs do intimate searches so yes, bras do indeed get removed.

    You have searched many female prisoners I assume and further than just their bras


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,840 ✭✭✭ Mav11


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I am a woman, and I have been taken in for searches in the airport.
    Noone asks you to take off your bra.

    Because they don’t care in airports if you have a few micro sims hidden in your bra. They do in prisons.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Presumably lots of female solicitors get into prisons every day. Is it widely known that you can’t even have metal underwear.

    The airplane stuff isn’t that relevant as it’s not a prison.


  • Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,830 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Neyite


    bubblypop wrote: »
    I am a woman, and I have been taken in for searches in the airport.
    Noone asks you to take off your bra.

    Airport is a bit different to a prison so it stands to reason searches would be treated differently.

    Regardless, my underwire always sets off at airports. So I've had a wand scanner waved around the boob area to satisfy them that it's just that setting off the scanner but I've often had the female security guard feel along the full length of the wire running a finger behind underneath the band to ensure that there's nothing hidden alongside it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,533 ✭✭✭ FishOnABike


    The crux of this is that a male solicitor got a pass in the same circumstances. Why the double standard? Rule should be applied universally.
    Is there anything to show the male solicitor was allowed in wearing an underwired bra which had triggered the metal detector?


Advertisement