Garda Apology

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:18PM

In there are any millennials reading who are wondering why Ireland was a pseudo-theocratic basket case ran by repressed bigots, and are curious to know what may have came out of their mouths - please see skooterblue2's posts.

Don't worry though, he has the right to speak his mind as he's paid loadzaloadza taxes (apparently).

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:18PM

Yurt! wrote: »

That doesn't surprise given the content of your posts.

Well there wasnt a socialist paper at the time and we didnt have the internet. could you have suggested another publication at the time?

BarryD2 · 17-06-2019 12:19PM

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?

Grayson · 17-06-2019 12:20PM

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?

Marrying someone to keep your job isn't really a solution.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:24PM

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?

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.

17-06-2019 12:24PM

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.

i think there's something to that, surely. a measured (which almost needs to become a dry, impersonal procedure in order to work) approach of a quasi-legal bent.

but its a fine process to step through.

"was it wrong?" is .... even if your answer is yes, it's almost a useless lens through which to view it.

"was it legal"
"was it open"
"had the actors the right to act as they did at the time"

i do think these considerations (and similar) have to be met before you start to look at harm caused and what response is the right one officially.

i understand completely that this approach doesnt give the sympathisers the satisfaction theyre seeking.

but acting on behalf of an official body is not a popularity contest and is not a test of personal morals.

im not sure that this instance is a practical opportunity to do anything more than agree that this was a ****ty approach and be glad that we changed it.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:25PM

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.

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.

eagle eye · 17-06-2019 12:27PM

I've been wronged many times in my life. Things have changed though and we move on. You gotta look forward and not back. The only reason the past is important is to learn from mistakes.
I can't see what benefit an apology now has, it's hollow at best because none of the people involved are giving it.

Jupiter Mulligan · 17-06-2019 12:28PM

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.

What it actually means is somewhat at odds to your interpretation.

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.

Indeed it might. Quite perspicacious of you to spot that. Well done!

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:29PM

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.

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.

BattleCorp · 17-06-2019 12:31PM

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.

I'm struggling to see your reasoning. Even the current Garda Commissioner seems to think that she was 'done wrong' as he is prepared to offer her an apology.

The Minister for Justice has already apologised.

These are high ranking people and they don't apologise lightly.

There's absolutely no way that carry-on would be tolerated nowadays - and rightly so.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0616/1055596-flanagan-apology-moynihan/

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:31PM

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.

Very stable genius. Paid loadza taxes. We got it.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:31PM

Grayson wrote: »

Marrying someone to keep your job isn't really a solution.

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

BattleCorp · 17-06-2019 12:33PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

With a quote like that, I'm guessing you are acting the b0llix so for that reason - I'm out.

Jupiter Mulligan · 17-06-2019 12:33PM

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?

John Mulcahy's excellent Hibernia magazine would have been pretty good at exposing such nonsense, as would Vincent Browne's Magill.

They would have been the journals that helped greatly to form my antipathy to the Official Ireland of the 1970 and 80's.

EDIT: And the Irish Times had just started to gather an excellent bunch of female/feminist journalists - like Nell McCafferty - who were beginning to take on the Irish patriarchy in all respects.

SusieBlue · 17-06-2019 12:34PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I must have touched a nerve do you have a few little illegitimates you cant account for the father?

Horrific thing to say.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:35PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

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?

SusieBlue · 17-06-2019 12:37PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If he was good enough for behind the bike shed in Templemore he was good enough for the marital bed.

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?

17-06-2019 12:37PM

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!

Well done, morebarn2. Things were changing and you were a pioneer of that change, obviously. Were you in a city by any chance? Things were easier there.

But there were a lot for whom this didn't work out. If you worked in a sector where the Church was in control (eg,schools, voluntary hospitals) your path may not have possible. I am aware of plenty of situations from that time where people were (one way or another) obliged to leave their jobs.

Also, it was not just institutions at the time - plenty of women were obliged by their families to go for adoption or leave "for England" (ie, out of the way).

So I have every sympathy for Ms.Moynihan - she was treated terribly. But so were lots of women in similar circumstances. They were terrible, hypocritical times. I see this case as more of a warning about anyone promoting nostalgia about those times. Perhaps, there is some specific aspect of her case that merits an apology. But more generally, if she is due an apology so are many others in similar circumstances.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:38PM

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

John Mulcahy's excellent Hibernia magazine would have been pretty good at exposing such nonsense, as would Vincent Browne's Magill.

Never saw it in a country household. I am a bit like Tupac, I am a product of my environment. I am not going to apologise for what I read or the content of my education.

Mrsmum · 17-06-2019 12:39PM

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?

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 · 17-06-2019 12:40PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Horrific thing to say.

I never cast the first stone. I took a few hits before I replied.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:45PM

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?

Yep. I would have married the same person who took my virginity, but it didnt work out that way. She is off married to someone else and I am getting married to someone else and that was a mutual decision.

The difference was that neither of us were in training in Templemore, under regulations or had a kid. Yeah I would hold a guy to the same regulations. Soup for the goose is soup for the gander.

Jupiter Mulligan · 17-06-2019 12:47PM

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?

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.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:47PM

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?

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.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:50PM

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.

And if you were a guy whos marriage fell apart you could find it hard to get a job. The 1980's were very family orientated.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:52PM

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.

Even from the vantage of 2019, the most conservative interpretation of the rules deployed in concert and in consultation with the Archbishop of Dublin, leading to the bullying and harassment of a young women so that she in the end gave up her child was appalling even for the 80s.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:53PM

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.

Happy enough with that answer. You're definitely a bigot.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:54PM

Yurt! wrote: »

Happy enough with that answer. You're definitely a bigot.

You say the cutest things!!!

Stop moaning ffs · 17-06-2019 12:55PM

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?

Can’t speak to the Gardaí regulations at the time but I don’t think ‘fraternisation’ was allowed at the time so he couldn’t have married her anyways unless one of them left?

Why should she have to marry him anyways. His attitude afterwards tells its own story. I’m divided on it and can see his point of view and hers. But she never asked him for anything. So fair play

Garda Apology

Comments