Yurt! wrote: » That doesn't surprise given the content of your posts.
BarryD2 wrote: » I heard the documentary, tough treatment of that woman. Being of a similar age though I can appreciate the times that were in it and her position as a young woman and recruit facing all these Garda regulations and culture. I quite believe that it was very daunting. We are only hearing one side of the story, so who knows there may be different angles. I think what might have also gone against her in the patriarchal leadership of the Gardai at the time, was that her boyfriend offered to regularise the situation by marrying her and she declined for her own reasons. That might have been seen as a spurning of a logical solution by the Gardai of the day?
skooterblue2 wrote: » Well there wasnt a socialist paper at the time and we didnt have the internet. could you have suggested another publication at the time?
Grayson wrote: » Maybe not, but when the state or a group treated people atrociously then there needs to be at the very least an apology. We've seen this happen with the magdalene laundries. We've seen something similar when women were paid less by the civil service and forced to quit when they were married. The government apologised and in cases offered redress. the question to ask is whether the government acted badly. If they did, should they say sorry? And was there a financial lose to the person or at least physical/emotional harm that may need financial redress.
BarryD2 wrote: » I heard the documentary, tough treatment of that woman. Being of a similar age though I can appreciate the times that were in it and her position as a young woman and recruit facing all these Garda regulations and culture. I quite believe that it was very daunting.
Yurt! wrote: » Such a curt aphorism might be appropriate if the culture of state institutions has radically changed. Evidence over the past couple of years suggests otherwise.
Yurt! wrote: » Your own posts would also lead people to believe that there are many in the country that don't give a hoot how people get treated, as long as evreything looks tickety-boo on the surface and pensions get paid.
Yurt! wrote: » Fianna Fail Pravda rag - with more than a few rosary bead rattlers on staff. Are you, like Bertie, claiming the mantle of socialism? All the while defending the harassment of a young pregnant woman? I hate to break it to you pork-chop, but it was actually the Beano you were reading all those years ago.
skooterblue2 wrote: » Everyone finds Garda/Defence force training tough and anyone who says differently has never completed it. Its to prepare you for what is ahead. She was not a "young woman" she was trainee Garda. She had a working knowledge of regulations and the law.
skooterblue2 wrote: » What other choice did the household have? The Independent? The point is I was reading current affairs at an early age. I was well informed of what was going on and who was moving where.
Grayson wrote: » Marrying someone to keep your job isn't really a solution.
skooterblue2 wrote: » If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.
skooterblue2 wrote: » I must have touched a nerve do you have a few little illegitimates you cant account for the father?
morebarn2 wrote: » While I agree that those were different times I can’t agree that by1984 things hadn’t changed immensely. Lots of girls were keeping their children and raising them singlehanded or with a partner , without marrying. I lived with my boyfriend from the mid 70s, quite openly and we had a baby in 1979. I worked in a very public-facing role in a local authority and my circumstances were never an issue. After the birth I returned to work 8 weeks later and life continued as normal. People were very accepting and it was certainly possible to have a career and a child, without being married! We had as free a life as we wanted, the Church had no say or interference in it. Happiest years of our life really!
Jupiter Mulligan wrote: » John Mulcahy's excellent Hibernia magazine would have been pretty good at exposing such nonsense, as would Vincent Browne's Magill.
Stop moaning ffs wrote: » Some of the posts though..seems a certain faction still think or wish we were back in that cruel horrible Ireland of old. No empathy at all lads no?
SusieBlue wrote: » Horrific thing to say.
SusieBlue wrote: » With that kind of attitude, I presume you hold yourself to the same standard and you're marrying the person who took your virginity? Good enough to sleep with, good enough to marry? Or do those standards only apply when we're talking about single women?
Yurt! wrote: » I'm going to put this out there, and I don't accuse people of this lightly, but do you think you might have a problem with women?
Jupiter Mulligan wrote: » Like it or not, his point has a certain validity. The alternative, if you bothered to think about it, would be to accept that as he wasn't a man who she was willing to marry, she was being rather promiscuous in having sex with him. Not in a 2019 context, obviously, but very definitely in the context of the 1980s. Of course a lot of the more indignant posters on this thread weren't even alive in the 1980's so simply haven't a clue about how women who were sexually generous were regarded back then.
Mrsmum wrote: » Well you may very well think that from my posts but what I really think is fretting that you didn't get today's standards back then is just ridiculous imo.
skooterblue2 wrote: » Of course I do when she uses all the hot water before me. No I dont but we arent talking about a woman, we are talking about a Garda Trainee.
Yurt! wrote: » Happy enough with that answer. You're definitely a bigot.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
