Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Garda Apology

1…89111314…19

Comments

  • #302
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    jeremyj1968 wrote: »
    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.

    The most relevant question I would like to hear an interviewer ask is - How exactly were you going to manage ? Would you have been able to afford a bedsit and childcare while you worked, especially on garda shifts? How supportive were your family in a practical way ? Who was available to help you ? Because quite frankly it's easy to complain of pressure to have baby adopted but if you don't want to adopt, you better have an answer to these questions. My 19 year old next door neighbour had a baby two years ago and she lives with her family who are so supportive and on whom she relies very heavily. I can't imagine how she would manage without that support in these times never mind then.


  • #303
    Jupiter Mulligan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 525 ✭✭✭Jupiter Mulligan


    Sardonicat wrote: »
    That much is self evident.

    That's good to know, thanks. :)

    The day that I allow other people to dictate to me how I should "feel" about things (because let's face it, there's not much evidence of thought being displayed on this thread) is the day that I cease to be cerebrate.


  • #304
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 43,005 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Yurt! wrote:
    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?
    From my reading of what he posted he was talking about them in that time with the rules and customs as they were then.


  • #305
    Jupiter Mulligan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 525 ✭✭✭Jupiter Mulligan


    Grayson wrote: »

    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.

    And here my friends we have a text book example of how 21st century "debate" works.

    Some slack-jawed joker who thinks that he's smart puts words in another poster's mouth and then challenges the other poster to defend them!

    Sorry bud, but I'm not interested in joining your game of silly buggers.


  • #306
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    eagle eye wrote: »
    From my reading of what he posted he was talking about them in that time with the rules and customs as they were then.


    They weren’t interested in a happy ending the two people involved getting married with their newborn.

    They were following an archaic nonsense that shamed the woman in the situation. Not the man who did the deed.
    And she bore the prolonged brunt of it. Not him.
    They were acting under church direction with a bishop involved and with political clout.
    That’s the problem.


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    Pure rot, and I see he's ignoring a threadban as well.


    not the only one tbf


  • #308
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »
    And here my friends we have a text book example of how 21st century "debate" works.

    Some slack-jawed joker who thinks that he's smart puts words in another poster's mouth and then challenges the other poster to defend them!

    Sorry bud, but I'm not interested in joining your game of silly buggers.

    im on the opposite side of the debate from grayson but thats unfair.

    they are pointing out that the law aint necessarily right, and is open to need defending if you rely on nothing more that "its the law" as an argument in a moral context.

    that's fair enough comment imo.

    on the other hand, "she knew it was the rules and she knew the consequences" is not quite the same argument and is, imo, a fair statement to make here.

    subtle differences maybe but valid to point out here i think


  • #309
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    They weren’t interested in a happy ending the two people involved getting married with their newborn.

    They were following an archaic nonsense that shamed the woman in the situation. Not the man who did the deed.
    And she bore the prolonged brunt of it. Not him.
    They were acting under church direction with a bishop involved and with political clout.
    That’s the problem.

    both were shamed


  • #310
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 43,005 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Stop moaning ffs wrote:
    They were following an archaic nonsense that shamed the woman in the situation. Not the man who did the deed. And she bore the prolonged brunt of it. Not him. They were acting under church direction with a bishop involved and with political clout. That’s the problem.
    They weren’t interested in a happy ending the two people involved getting married with their newborn.
    It's history, we have learned from it. We can't be looking back frowning on everything. We need to accept the past and learn from in and look to making things better for everybody.


  • #311
    Strazdas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,020 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    BarryD2 wrote: »
    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.

    Shotgun weddings were very commonplace in the past. Apparently as recently as the early 1960s, they were happening in large numbers in Europe.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    both were shamed


    It’s a safe bet and a matter of record that she endured a much more gruelling and difficult experience than he did. Let’s be real here.


  • #313
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    eagle eye wrote: »
    It's history, we have learned from it. We can't be looking back frowning on everything. We need to accept the past and learn from in and look to making things better for everybody.

    That was my point though. We have to acknowledge these wrongs that we have already and somehow still haven’t addressed before we can move on.

    Until we do ireland will be forever trapped in this repeating cycle of shocking horrific events. And doing nothing about them.


  • #314
    Jupiter Mulligan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 525 ✭✭✭Jupiter Mulligan


    Deleted User wrote: »

    im on the opposite side of the debate from grayson but thats unfair.

    they are pointing out that the law aint necessarily right, and is open to need defending if you rely on nothing more that "its the law" as an argument in a moral context.

    that's fair enough comment imo.

    on the other hand, "she knew it was the rules and she knew the consequences" is not quite the same argument and is, imo, a fair statement to make here.

    subtle differences maybe but valid to point out here i think


    By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

    None of which, of course, applies to a coercive situation like slavery.


  • #315
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    It’s a safe bet and a matter of record that she endured a much more gruelling and difficult experience than he did. Let’s be real here.

    be real enough to be clear in your language then.

    nothing of what has come out about him has painted him in a bad light considering the situation both of them were in, and im not equating the behaviour towards both of them but he didnt get an easy ride and he wasnt part of the apparatus that mistreated her and doesnt deserve to be hoisted on that petard


  • #316
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    It’s a safe bet and a matter of record that she endured a much more gruelling and difficult experience than he did. Let’s be real here.

    In fairness he was fined £90.


  • #317
    Yurt2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »
    By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

    None of which, of course, applies to a coercive situation like slavery.

    It would be interesting to know if at the time, on penalty of losing your job, the gardai could legally insist a recruit not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Even in the dark days of 80s, I would suspect that they couldn't - and if tested in court I'd suggest they would have a hell of a time proving they were acting lawfully.

    The Gardai can put what they like in their rulebook, they don't set the law or the parameters of people's rights.


  • #318
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »
    By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

    None of which, of course, applies to a coercive situation like slavery.

    Just checked. There isn’t any rules against priests molesting kids. In fact the culture of that orginisation promotes it and protects it. Isn’t that weird.


  • #319
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    be real enough to be clear in your language then.

    nothing of what has come out about him has painted him in a bad light considering the situation both of them were in, and im not equating the behaviour towards both of them but he didnt get an easy ride and he wasnt part of the apparatus that mistreated her and doesnt deserve to be hoisted on that petard

    He didn’t suffer relentless pressure in his job. He got fined £90. And presumably is still in the force. You dint kjow he didn’t get an easy ride. He was part of the apparatus that mistreated her. You didn’t hear what he said to her next they met?


  • #320
    Jupiter Mulligan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 525 ✭✭✭Jupiter Mulligan


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    Just checked. There isn’t any rules against priests molesting kids. In fact the culture of that orginisation promotes it and protects it. Isn’t that weird.

    Not in the least. What do you find "weird" about it?


  • #321
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »
    Not in the least. What do you find "weird" about it?

    So we should accept that and move on and shut up. One rule for state employees but another for a foreign entity and its agents with control of our entire society.

    Really?


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    He didn’t suffer relentless pressure in his job. He got fined £90. And presumably is still in the force. You dint kjow he didn’t get an easy ride. He was part of the apparatus that mistreated her. You didn’t hear what he said to her next they met?

    look

    you said he wasnt shamed. he clearly was.

    now, we both agree her treatment and his wasnt equitable

    but then, its not consistent to declaim the treatment she received on one hand then being bitter about the easy ride he may or may not have gotten (i doubt we'll agree what the term would mean in context tbh) on the other

    neither should have been subject to it, it was wrong

    they also knew the risks, whether they agreed or not

    litigating it through 2019 lens seems to me a foolhardy way to spend an afternoon tbh


  • #323
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Yurt! wrote: »
    It would be interesting to know if at the time, on penalty of losing your job, the gardai could legally insist a recruit not to get pregnant out of wedlock. Even in the dark days of 80s, I would suspect that they couldn't - and if tested in court I'd suggest they would have a hell of a time proving they were acting lawfully.

    The Gardai can put what they like in their rulebook, they don't set the law or the parameters of people's rights.

    i mean they couldnt insist that someone *couldnt*

    they could set out the consequences, which they did.

    i think a court case at the time would not have gotten very far tbh, times being what they were.


  • #324
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    look

    you said he wasnt shamed. he clearly was.

    now, we both agree her treatment and his wasnt equitable

    but then, its not consistent to declaim the treatment she received on one hand then being bitter about the easy ride he may or may not have gotten (i doubt we'll agree what the term would mean in context tbh) on the other

    neither should have been subject to it, it was wrong

    they also knew the risks, whether they agreed or not

    litigating it through 2019 lens seems to me a foolhardy way to spend an afternoon tbh

    I don’t believe she’s litigating it. She’s highlighting it. That’s all so far.
    She said today she wasn’t interested in compensation.
    So?


  • #325
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 11,195 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    I don’t believe she’s litigating it. She’s highlighting it. That’s all so far.
    She said today she wasn’t interested in compensation.
    So?

    heh I'm talking about *us*!


  • #326
    MrFresh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,420 ✭✭✭MrFresh


    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    Just checked. There isn’t any rules against priests molesting kids. In fact the culture of that orginisation promotes it and protects it. Isn’t that weird.


    There's the law though.


  • #327
    Stop moaning ffs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,850 ✭✭✭Stop moaning ffs


    MrFresh wrote: »
    There's the law though.

    Which has rarely applied to them


  • #328
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 19,174 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »
    By applying to join an organisation you are implicitly agreeing to abide by its rules. If you then decide that the rules aren't for you. then you are free to leave. Morality doesn't come into it. You can't sign up and then decide that you'll decide which rules are right and which ones you won't bother obeying. That's the road to anarchy.

    And would you mind pointing out in the Garda 'rules' where it states that unmarried recruits are not allowed to have premarital sex, or women are not allowed to be single mothers?


  • #329
    eagle eye
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 43,005 ✭✭✭✭eagle eye


    Stop moaning ffs wrote:
    That was my point though. We have to acknowledge these wrongs that we have already and somehow still haven’t addressed before we can move on.
    Until we do ireland will be forever trapped in this repeating cycle of shocking horrific events. And doing nothing about them.
    Acknowledge what? That that's the way things were back then? We can't do anything about it now. If things were still like that then we could take affirmative action but they are not. We, the people of Ireland, realised it was wrong and stood up and changed things for the better.
    The people who made the decisions in this case are dead or very old. Getting an apology from the organisation is meaningless at this point imo.


  • #330
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,832 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    skooterblue2 wrote: »
    Not a guard and never was. Too smart for that.

    ah here
    Stop moaning ffs wrote: »
    I don’t believe she’s litigating it. She’s highlighting it. That’s all so far.
    She said today she wasn’t interested in compensation.
    So?

    Barrister and FF Justice Minister wannabe Jim O'Callaghan was on the radio earlier and said his legal opinion was that she couldnt litigate as the case is statute barred due to the passage of time.

    He did call for her to be back paid her Garda pension as a form of compensation, something only the Govt. can approve.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    1641
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭1641


    bubblypop wrote: »
    And would you mind pointing out in the Garda 'rules' where it states that unmarried recruits are not allowed to have premarital sex, or women are not allowed to be single mothers?


    I am not defending what happened to her and I doubt that there was a specific offence on premarital sex. But there would be a generic offence of "bringing the organisation into disrepute". Obviously getting pregnant outside of marriage would not qualify as such nowadays. But in the early 80s it would have - or arguably so. Such were the public (hypocritical) norms of the time. I was around at the time and unfortunately it was not that unusual for people to lose their jobs for similar "offences".



    Incidentally, many companies still have "bringing the organization into disrepute" in the disciplinary code, eg, comments on social media by an employee which a company deems damaging to its reputation.


Advertisement
Advertisement