Garda Apology

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:57PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You say the cutest things!!!

You wouldn't dare say the things you posted here to a woman in 2019. Even down the pub you wouldn't get away with it. Which is why I suspect you're here polluting this thread.

Stop moaning ffs · 17-06-2019 12:59PM

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.

My parents were both kids of 16 when my mother fell pregnant. This in 76.
The local priest wouldn’t baptise me until they had married. They were forced to.

Spare me your nonsense.

jeremyj1968 · 17-06-2019 01:12PM

I think there is balance missing from the reporting of this story. There is a great reluctance for broadcasters, especially male broadcasters, to ask the questions that would be asked around the dinner table. It seems like it's okay to just say that I "fell pregnant", and then cry, and that makes absolves you of all personal responsibility. If you take the scenario - just after joining the guards, a job that she said that she loved, future looking bright. And she decides to have consensual, unprotected sex with another guard. Surely if the career meant that much to her, she could have obeyed the rules, and took all precautions not to get pregnant?

Having said that, the guards, of course, made a hames of the follow up. If she broke the rules they should have just let her go. The ongoing questioning was a bit much and asking her about her sex life was very intrusive. And don't get me wrong, I think she had a difficult lot, particularly with her mother dying so young. But I think there is a need for a more honest assessment of the situation, and acknowledge that the woman herself didn't exactly do the best to help her own situation.

Mortelaro · 17-06-2019 01:14PM

As I expected The calls for an inquiry have started on the RTÉ news at one..
This is where this is going
A complete and total waste of money

We're made of it

17-06-2019 01:14PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

My parents were both kids of 16 when my mother fell pregnant. This in 76.
The local priest wouldn’t baptise me until they had married. They were forced to.

Spare me your nonsense.

But does that not just make the point? Those were typical of society's mores back then. They were cruel, hypocritical mores - most would agree that now. But most still accepted them back then, even though times were changing.

17-06-2019 01:16PM

Yurt! wrote: »

You wouldn't dare say the things you posted here to a woman in 2019. Even down the pub you wouldn't get away with it. Which is why I suspect you're here polluting this thread.

this didnt happen in 2019

things having changed doesnt change historical context

Mrsmum · 17-06-2019 01:19PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

My parents were both kids of 16 when my mother fell pregnant. This in 76.
The local priest wouldn’t baptise me until they had married. They were forced to.

Spare me your nonsense.

Sure all that does is reinforce my point that times were different. The priest wouldn't baptise you but you think eight years later when little enough had changed and certainly not attitudes to unmarried mothers, AGS were going to be happy with her situation.

Stop moaning ffs · 17-06-2019 01:22PM

1641 wrote: »

But does that not just make the point? Those were typical of society's mores back then. They were cruel, hypocritical mores - most would agree that now. But most still accepted them back then, even though times were changing.

That’s not what I took from that posters comment. It was a very different time and horrific for a great many people, men and women both.
I have no problem with it being addressed now though however.

We’re still waiting on the reparations from the church, which the state paid for and full inquiries into events like the Tuam babies.

There’s absolutely no point in sticking fingers in our ears and ignoring all these horrific events. We need to address every one of them to be able to learn and move on.

Mrsmum · 17-06-2019 01:22PM

1641 wrote: »

But does that not just make the point? Those were typical of society's mores back then. They were cruel, hypocritical mores - most would agree that now. But most still accepted them back then, even though times were changing.

Exactly.

17-06-2019 01:24PM

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

That’s not what I took from that posters comment. It was a very different time and horrific for a great many people, men and women both.
I have no problem with it being addressed now though however.

We’re still waiting on the reparations from the church, which the state paid for and full inquiries into events like the Tuam babies.

There’s absolutely no point in sticking fingers in our ears and ignoring all these horrific events. We need to address every one of them to be able to learn and move on.

legislation and policies were changed

that's the correct step taken

again this wasnt illegal, it wasnt hidden, it was policy at the time

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 01:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

this didnt happen in 2019

things having changed doesnt change historical context

This was my point, even in the context of the mid-80s, a commissioner sitting down with the head of the Catholic church in Ireland, poring over the sexual history of a young recruit was grotesque. The people involved were extremely arrogant and cruel even for their time.

They deserve the ass-kicking they're getting in the media and the woman deserves her apology and more.

Unshelved · 17-06-2019 01:28PM

Two experiences from the 1980's -

A college doctor (a Dublin college) refusing to prescribe the pill because "he didn't approve of it for unmarried girls - it encouraged them to be promiscuous". He was well-known for his conservative views on birth control but continued to be employed by the university until he retired.

An unmarried girl who got pregnant (the boyfriend didn't stick around). She was working in a office job (again, Dublin-based) which required wearing a uniform. When she couldn't fit into the uniform any more she was dismissed, with non-adherence to the dress code given as the reason.

The 1980's were like a different country. It's so hard to describe the atmosphere of shame and secrecy around female sexuality to anyone who didn't experience it. I have the utmost sympathy for this woman.

Grayson · 17-06-2019 01:31PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

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.

That's what's called an "appeal to law" type of argument.

It's the law, it's the rule, so it must be right. You're not actually looking at whether or not the actual rule is moral.

All sorts of horrible things are laws around the world at the moment. All sorts of horrible things were law here in the past.
Not to mention things that are bad that aren't illegal like cheating on a partner.

Saying something was wrong because there was a rule against it is a really dumb thing to do.

And as I mentioned previously, the government has apologised for things they did in the past. Loads of governments have. and they're generally the better governments.

Mrsmum · 17-06-2019 01:33PM

Shotgun weddings were as common as muck at that time. Why ? Because of the stigma of have an illegitimate child. Even that word is gone now, thankfully but it was not a nice word then. And when a girl got pregnant, her father or both parents would be right round to the fellas house telling him to do right by their daughter. That wouldn't happen now, it would be laughable but it happened all the time then. I don't think parents hated their daughters when they ran them up the aisle. I think they genuinely felt her life was no more good if she didn't do that, you would hear people say no one else would ever take her after that and of course they felt shame themselves too. Tough and very different times.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 01:37PM

Yurt! wrote: »

You wouldn't dare say the things you posted here to a woman in 2019. Even down the pub you wouldn't get away with it. Which is why I suspect you're here polluting this thread.

The difference is the context. Remember in 1300AD if you suggested that the world was anything other than flat, you would be taken out and burn at the stake. The difference is the context of the time.

Could you imagine in 1980 if it was announced that we would have an openly gay, Indian Taoiseach who wasnt democratically elected to office? You would be taken outside and burned at the stake too.

Jupiter Mulligan · 17-06-2019 01:39PM

Grayson wrote: »

Saying something was wrong because there was a rule against it is a really dumb thing to do.

In that case, I'm extremely proud of my dumbness.

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 01:40PM

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

Saying something was wrong because there was a rule against it is a really dumb thing to do.

In that case, I'm extremely proud of my dumbness.

That much is self evident.

Feisar · 17-06-2019 01:44PM

Unshelved wrote: »

Two experiences from the 1980's -

A college doctor (a Dublin college) refusing to prescribe the pill because "he didn't approve of it for unmarried girls - it encouraged them to be promiscuous". He was well-known for his conservative views on birth control but continued to be employed by the university until he retired.

An unmarried girl who got pregnant (the boyfriend didn't stick around). She was working in a office job (again, Dublin-based) which required wearing a uniform. When she couldn't fit into the uniform any more she was dismissed, with non-adherence to the dress code given as the reason.

The 1980's were like a different country. It's so hard to describe the atmosphere of shame and secrecy around female sexuality to anyone who didn't experience it. I have the utmost sympathy for this woman.

The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.

Grayson · 17-06-2019 01:44PM

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

In that case, I'm extremely proud of my dumbness.

So you think slaves shouldn't run away from their masters? Because there were rules against that.

Simply saying that something was wrong because there was a rule against it isn't a valid argument. You can argue there's a rule against something because it's wrong, but you still have to independently argue that the thing is actually wrong.

Kimbot · 17-06-2019 01:49PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I never said I was a virgin, just I have no wild oats. Maybe I have good memory and you are far out on the age too. Late 40's? Mrs Skooter to be is going to love this. If I remember the 1980's so well its because I was reading the paper at an early age and my father had me watching the 6 'o Clock News. As I always say I didnt know where Belfast, Baghdad and Beirut were but I knew what was going on there.

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

MOD skooterblue2 - Dont post in this thread again.

17-06-2019 01:51PM

I think the attitude towards sexuality at the time was deeply hypocritical and the treatment of women who got pregnant outside of marriage was often cruel. But who is to apologise for the societal attitudes that supported all this?
I am not speaking about institutional abuse here but the more widespread societal attitude towards "fallen women". If there are to be apologies who is to apologise and on who's behalf? Should we not all, more or less, be apologising on behalf of our previous generations, ie, our parents, grandparents,etc? Or should we not concentrate more on ensuring that people are treated better now and in the future?
We should certainly acknowledge the cruelties of the past and learn from them - but what does it mean to apologise on behalf of previous generations?

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 01:53PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

The difference is the context. Remember in 1300AD if you suggested that the world was anything other than flat, you would be taken out and burn at the stake. The difference is the context of the time.

Could you imagine in 1980 if it was announced that we would have an openly gay, Indian Taoiseach who wasnt democratically elected to office? You would be taken outside and burned at the stake too.

Run a little experiment for yourself: read out what you posted on this thread to your partner, then read it out to your mother, then your sister. Canvass their opinion.

I'll submit with confidence your comments won't get a better reception next year, or the year after that, or any year this side of a Isis style caliphate in Ireland.

tjhook · 17-06-2019 01:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I think I agree with this.

I have sympathy for her, and I'm very glad things have changed since this took place. But time passes, society changes, the people in charge now aren't the people who ran things when it occurred. I think it should be enough now for society to acknowledge that in the past it generally treated very badly those who broke society's mores.

We won't get much done as a country if we have to open investigations into actions that were acceptable at the time, but unacceptable now. School beatings alone would keep us very busy for a long time.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 01:56PM

Mod

Banned, ignored mod instruction

Stop moaning ffs · 17-06-2019 01:58PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Hmmmm So when you read the 10 Commandments, Do you think we have any reason to keep those laws? Thou shall not Kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour? You dont think they are there for your happiness?

I am sure other religions or societies have the same regulations. Its like the Art of War, When Sun Tzu ordered that anyone stealing food from civilians to supplement rations be killed. He cried when one of his own friends and general did the same. He ordered his friend be killed otherwise it would signal one law for one and another law for the others. It would lead to the breakdown of law and order.

This is what we are seeing in society. Like the solicitor last year who was caught with cocaine, he explained it away when he should have been struck off and/or jailed. That gives everyone else the right seemingly to do what they want without fear or consequence.

The 11th commandment in Ireland only applies to government and its institutions

‘Don’t get Caught’

Elemonator · 17-06-2019 02:03PM

amcalester wrote: »

Money. It’s alway money.

Nobelium wrote: »

There was no 'forced' adoption. Other female Gardai who found themselves in that situation at that time, opted to keep the child and kept their jobs. They were even transferred closer to home.

How as there not a forced adoption? She was put under pressure by the Gardai management to put her baby for adoption. If that is not duress I don't know what is. It is a matter that did not concern them. Couple this with the fact that they hold the monopoly on legitimate force in the state and other controversies such as Maurice McCabe and economy was in ruins. She was told quite plainly that if the Archbishop had not intervened on her behalf that she would have been sacked.

Frankly, it doesn't matter what happened to other female Gardai, it didn't happen to this one.

eagle eye · 17-06-2019 02:07PM

Yurt! wrote:

I'll submit with confidence your comments won't get a better reception next year, or the year after that, or any year this side of a Isis style caliphate in Ireland.

I think he is more aware of how things were in the 80's than you are.
Not alone were women treated terribly if they had a child out of wedlock but gay people got beaten up regularly just because they were gay. They had to deny they were gay and if they were in a relationship they had to be very secretive about it.
Back then you could drink all night and hop into your car and drive home. If you knocked somebody down it was just an unfortunate incident.
If you broke the law but came from 'good stock', the Gardai would drive to your house and talk to your parents. If they didn't want you charged then you weren't. If you came from a poorer family you'd end up in jail.
I wrote an essay for a competition when I was 14 years of age about gay people being forced to join religious orders. I went to a Christian Brothers school and my mother was called up over my essay. I got a clip over the head from her and was forced to throw the essay into an open fire. This was the norm back then if you got out of line with 'normal' thinking.

Strazdas · 17-06-2019 02:18PM

Interesting story on Liveline just now from an ex-guard who says he was aggressively interrogated by his superiors in the 80s after he was seen in the company of a gay colleague, saying the interrogation was deeply humiliating

He reckons they were trying to find out exactly how many members of the force were gay (and presumably this would count against them in a big way)

BarryD2 · 17-06-2019 02:31PM

Grayson wrote: »

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

Not the best reason to marry at all but wouldn't have been uncommon then and maybe even still now? The point is though Garda management may have judged that as the most practical solution to the issue.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 02:32PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I think he is more aware of how things were in the 80's than you are.
Not alone were women treated terribly if they had a child out of wedlock but gay people got beaten up regularly just because they were gay. They had to deny they were gay and if they were in a relationship they had to be very secretive about it.
Back then you could drink all night and hop into your car and drive home. If you knocked somebody down it was just an unfortunate incident.
If you broke the law but came from 'good stock', the Gardai would drive to your house and talk to your parents. If they didn't want you charged then you weren't. If you came from a poorer family you'd end up in jail.
I wrote an essay for a competition when I was 14 years of age about gay people being forced to join religious orders. I went to a Christian Brothers school and my mother was called up over my essay. I got a clip over the head from her and was forced to throw the essay into an open fire. This was the norm back then if you got out of line with 'normal' thinking.

The difficulty isn't that he knows more about the norms of the 80s, if he was reading the funny pages in the Irish Press back then we all have a fair idea of his age, more to the point that he's content in 2019 to post garbage about the woman 'behind the bike sheds in Templemore', casting aspertions on her character just like the scumbags did in 1984. Pure rot, and I see he's ignoring a threadban as well.

Skooter and his rules eh?

Garda Apology

Comments