Garda Apology

Ionabots everywhere!

They haven’t gone away Yknow

Yurt! wrote: »

Come off of it, what possible agency did this woman enjoy when we know the forces that were pitted against her on the threat of losing her job?

I'd have some sympathy for your point of view if we were having this discussion in 1984, then we could at least admit you were a man of your time. But you're trying to peddle this line in 2019, knowing what we know.

As far as I can discern, you're trying to say this woman shouldn't have had sex in the circumstances she was in, and the rules and culture of the time were just that; so she should have known better. Well, gold medal for you Captain Hindsight.

And what's more, you're slyly suggesting the Garda hierarchy at the time had no agency at the time themselves, they simply had to apply the opaque rules of 'discrediting the force' the way they did.

Newflash from 1985, this was a matter of controversy and debate back then too...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/intolerable-intrusion-the-1985-coverage-of-majella-moynihan-s-story-1.3928248

easy there now ted

lets conservatively (ironic lol) say that its two dozen times on this thread that someone has - correctly- made the distinction between agreeing with the times that were in it and acknowledging that they were nevertheless the times that were in it.

I'll thank you for the simple courtesy of not suggesting again that i (or the majority of people you're scolding in this thread) are stating that this was a sequence of events we would agree with now or are looking back on approvingly. to continue to do so is simply no more than soapboxing from you and im so not here for it.

the agency is set out numerous times. you have set it out, in the bare facts yourself, above. if we take it all as simply and as presented, it was job or child and she chose job. im sick enough saying its not an easy decision and ill stop making these sops to subtlety now seeing as you are still addressing me as if im commissioner x from 1980. my posts in the thread are clear without consistently needing to be saved from your bald misrepresentation.

you havent once acknowledged that these were known terms and conditions of employment. of society, in a broader sense.

"as far as you can discern" - you can take a long walk if this is your level. i take no position on sex, extramarital sex, unprotected extramarital sex in the society thats in it and if you could see your way to withdrawing your snide remark id appreciate it and be pleasantly surprised.

if i were to take a position on unprotected extramarital sex in her circumstances at the time id say it was ****ing risky and risks arent called risks because all the outcomes are mighty craic. youll ignore that point we can be sure.

the only reference i can be said to have made to the agency of anyone representing the force in 1984 is a post earlier in the thread where i believe i doubted the capacity of many to again use a bit of subtlety of thought to make a distinction between personal morals and a role acting in a non-discretionary manner.

do i wish they had done differently, yep surely i do (and sick enough having to say it as a performance for you and the other one), do i suspect they could have done differently, yep probably i do (with a probable cost to themselves, perhaps, at whatever level of the chain they were at), do i think it likely, in 1984, in the circumstances we have already set out ad nauseum that anyone with an ounce of cop-on would expect them to do so nine times out of ten? I don't.

the performatively outraged handwringing will chap your skin. if you must do it, dont wail at me while doing it please.

Yurt! wrote: »

Garda rules aren't the law. Crack open a book and get that into your head.

I didn’t say they were?

Garda Moynihan as she was at the time knew the rules of AGS which applied to her as a member of AGS.

Everyone else knew the law which applied to them as members of the public.

My point was that being educated in an industrial school offers no explanation or excuse as to why Garda Moynihan was of the opinion that she was above the rules of the organisation of which she was a member.

Of course it was going to be humiliating when it was pointed out to her by her superior officers that she isn’t above the rules, in spite of her protestations that they “leave her alone”.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Could we cope with the horror of what would come out !

I see where you're coming from but I still think we'd be a much better society for having the courage to examine our history like that. Much better. I am always impressed at the honesty which the Germans have had about WWII and their museums are thoroughly admirable in their courage about this past. It's not as if the poor in other European societies did not endure local variants of what the Irish poor endured - although there is certainly a much greater emphasis on social history in France, for instance, than there is in Ireland, where our very conservative historians infamously merely aped the English historical research culture which focuses on the history of the political elite and their wars. Historical research in Ireland is still suffering from this emphasis.

And you can be sure that after 10 or 20 years of research into the social histories of these homes etc, we will also have more balance, hearing stories of good things which were done by good people in those years and have a better understanding of how Ireland compared internationally. It all beats some eejit with an affected accent musing about some esoteric letter written by some waffler in 1932/1832/1732 that has already been examiner by other like-minded people - and being paid by the state to do so. Then again, that's a lovely, safe history for the state to spend its research funding on.

Deleted User wrote: »

easy there now ted

you havent once acknowledged that these were known terms and conditions of employment. of society, in a broader sense.

I wont even bother dealing with the rest of the post because it's an exercise in you trying to un-knot yourself.

At this point however, is where you really fall down.

Employers are entitled to set conditions of employment but they must above all be lawful conditions. Example: if you are in retail and a condition of your employment is that you wear a tie, that's a perfectly lawful condition and you can't complain if you don't wear it and get your p45.

Can AGS use an opaque provision such as 'bringing the force into disrepute' to censure a Gard who got pregnant out of wedlock? It wasn't litigated at the time, but if it entered a judge's courtroom, then and now it would probably fall under being unlawful.

AGS can put what it wants in it's rulebook, the law doesn't care what date is on the calendar, it doesn't care about conditions of society or what's being written in the Irish Press, it doesn't even care about what kind of mustache the Commissioner was sporting - if it's unlawful, it's unlawful.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t say they were?

Garda Moynihan as she was at the time knew the rules of AGS which applied to her as a member of AGS.

Everyone else knew the law which applied to them as members of the public.

My point was that being educated in an industrial school offers no explanation or excuse as to why Garda Moynihan was of the opinion that she was above the rules of the organisation of which she was a member.

Of course it was going to be humiliating when it was pointed out to her by her superior officers that she isn’t above the rules, in spite of her protestations that they “leave her alone”.

Rules, be they set by AGS or your local Spar, must adhere to the law. You suggested she wasn't adhering to the law. It's in your post.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I see where you're coming from but I still think we'd be a much better society for having the courage to examine our history like that. Much better. I am always impressed at the honesty which the Germans have had about WWII and their museums are thoroughly admirable in their courage about this past. It's not as if the poor in other European societies did not endure local variants of what the Irish poor endured - although there is certainly a much greater emphasis on social history in France, for instance, than there is in Ireland, where our very conservative historians infamously merely aped the English historical research culture which focuses on the history of the political elite and their wars. Historical research in Ireland is still suffering from this emphasis.

And you can be sure that after 10 or 20 years of research into the social histories of these homes etc, we will also have more balance, hearing stories of good things which were done by good people in those years and have a better understanding of how Ireland compared internationally. It all beats some eejit with an affected accent musing about some esoteric letter written by some waffler in 1932/1832/1732 that has already been examiner by other like-minded people - and being paid by the state to do so. Then again, that's a lovely, safe history for the state to spend its research funding on.

Look at the reaction to this controversy and the amount of people blaming MM for this scenario. It’s not the states fault or the gardais. It’s her fault.

I agree we should examine and expose all of our history and address it warts and all. But even a short read through here will show you the type of people presumably from that era, certainly their thinking is, and how they would react to it.

Judging by this article, she’ll have the children’s home and the maternity hospital in her sights next! https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ex-garda-they-no-longer-have-a-hold-over-me-today-im-free-931293.html

Yurt! wrote: »

I wont even bother dealing with the rest of the post

eyeroll.jpg

Deleted User wrote: »

eyeroll.jpg

Yeah it was a mess pal.

What was notable in it tough was that you appear to believe that AGS can concoct 'rules' as they see fit, apply them as they see fit, that they are discrete from the legal order, and that the unwritten codes and mores of society override enumerated rights.

Yurt! wrote: »

Rules, be they set by AGS or your local Spar, must adhere to the law. You suggested she wasn't adhering to the law. It's in your post.

I didn’t suggest she wasn’t adhering to the law and it’s not in my post either. In your post you considered that the fact she was educated in an industrial school is somehow relevant to the fact that she was found to be in violation of the rules of the organisation of which she was a member at the time.

She was found to be in violation of the rules as set down by S.I. No. 316/1971 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1971 -

1. Conduct prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the Force.

It was perfectly lawful then, and it’s perfectly lawful now. That’s why when she contacted Michael Noonan about it, she was told correctly, that it was nothing to do with him as the Minister for Justice at the time -

Separately, Ms Lohan called on former Fine Gael leader Michael Noonan, who was Minister for Justice at the time, to state what he knew about the case.

Ms Moynihan said on Monday that she spoke with Mr Noonan ten years ago, and he told her that it was an internal Garda matter. Mr Noonan did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.

Her circumstances would be similar to Paddy Jackson claiming he was mistreated by his employer for having sex. We know that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. Similarly, Garda Moynihan in this case was not fired following informal disciplinary action, and she subsequently chose to remain with AGS for a number of years after until she chose to leave of her own volition, so attempting to portray herself as a victim, is a stretch.

I do worry about her though that if she isn’t satisfied this time with the outcome of all the media attention this time around, that she’ll run out of other people to blame for her circumstances.

marieholmfan

This was 35 years ago. This is not news.
We can only fix the problems that exist today.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I didn’t suggest she wasn’t adhering to the law and it’s not in my post either. In your post you considered that the fact she was educated in an industrial school is somehow relevant to the fact that she was found to be in violation of the rules of the organisation of which she was a member at the time.

She was found to be in violation of the rules as set down by S.I. No. 316/1971 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1971 -

1. Conduct prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the Force.

It was perfectly lawful then, and it’s perfectly lawful now. That’s why when she contacted Michael Noonan about it, she was told correctly, that it was nothing to do with him as the Minister for Justice at the time -

Separately, Ms Lohan called on former Fine Gael leader Michael Noonan, who was Minister for Justice at the time, to state what he knew about the case.

Ms Moynihan said on Monday that she spoke with Mr Noonan ten years ago, and he told her that it was an internal Garda matter. Mr Noonan did not respond to requests for comment yesterday.

Her circumstances would be similar to Paddy Jackson claiming he was mistreated by his employer for having sex. We know that would be a misrepresentation of the facts. Similarly, Garda Moynihan in this case was not fired following informal disciplinary action, and she subsequently chose to remain with AGS for a number of years after until she chose to leave of her own volition, so attempting to portray herself as a victim, is a stretch.

I do worry about her though that if she isn’t satisfied this time with the outcome of all the media attention this time around, that she’ll run out of other people to blame for her circumstances.

Take a wee read through that and point out the provision in the law where it deals with pregnancy. In your own time...

marieholmfan wrote: »

This was 35 years ago. This is not news.
We can only fix the problems that exist today.

It’s that kind of thinking that we still have and why horrors like the Tuam seeer grave aren’t investigated officially when they really should be.

We can’t just ignore these things they have to be looked into with all the seriousness they deserve.

Jupiter Mulligan

Banned.

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

I could deem you a nasty piece of work, but that would be too generous.

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

But, as with her decision to have unprotected sex with a fellow trainee garda, her decision not have a termination, her decision not to marry the man who fathered their child, her decision not to keep her child and her decision not to not leave AGS, it's entirely up to her.

You really are a piece of work.

I'm out of this thread - I've better things to be doing with life than engaging with sociopaths online.

F#cking hell.

SusieBlue

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

But, as with her decision to have unprotected sex with a fellow trainee garda, her decision not have a termination, her decision not to marry the man who fathered their child, her decision not to keep her child and her decision not to not leave AGS, it's entirely up to her.

Yes because abortion was freely available, accepted and regulated in Ireland in the 1980's in Ireland. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You're holding her to the standard of options she'd have had today, that's an unfair comparison and very disingenuous.

RobbieMD

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

If all else fails, then I suppose she could always make a sixth unsuccessful attempt to commit suicide. That should whip up another bit of publicity for her.

That’s particularly low. If you’re an adult you should be ashamed of yourself. Anyone feeling suicidal should seek help.

I’m glad we live in a time now when having sex or a child outside of wedlock isn’t punishable.

Yurt! wrote: »

Take a wee read through that and point out the provision in the law where it deals with pregnancy. In your own time...

What?

What sort of whataboutery is that? I didn’t say anything in my post about any provision in law where it deals with pregnancy.

Did you read my post properly? I was addressing the point you made in which you tried to imply that disciplinary action within the AGS at the time was somehow unlawful in your opinion. My point is that contrary to your belief - her being subject to disciplinary action for her actions was not unlawful.

marieholmfan

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

It’s that kind of thinking that we still have and why horrors like the Tuam seeer grave aren’t investigated officially when they really should be.

We can’t just ignore these things they have to be looked into with all the seriousness they deserve.

But not as news stories.
There is a fine balance between facing the past and pretending to speak truth to power by facing down those who are already beaten.

Where was RTE in 1984?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What?

What sort of whataboutery is that? I didn’t say anything in my post about any provision in law where it deals with pregnancy.

Did you read my post properly? I was addressing the point you made in which you tried to imply that disciplinary action within the AGS at the time was somehow unlawful in your opinion. My point is that contrary to your belief - her being subject to disciplinary action for her actions was not unlawful.

*Sigh*

Of course AGS are empowered to discpline. But they must discipline LAWFULLY and with good reason in accordance with law.

Last post on this thread. Enjoy fantasy land

Yurt! wrote: »

*Sigh*

Of course AGS are empowered to discpline. But they must discipline LAWFULLY and with good reason in accordance with law.

Last post on this thread. Enjoy fantasy land

Yeah, I’m still not seeing your point tbh. They acted lawfully and with good reason according to the rules of their own organisation in accordance with the law as it was at the time. Nowadays, it could constitute discrimination if Garda Moynihan had been treated differently on the basis that she was pregnant. It still doesn’t absolve her of any disciplinary action for violating the rules of the organisation of which she was a member. You appear to be ignoring the context in which you’re attempting to make the point that she was somehow treated unfairly by the organisation.

That seems to be her point too, and she doesn’t have much of a point either IMO.

Nermal

SusieBlue wrote: »

You're holding her to the standard of options she'd have had today, that's an unfair comparison and very disingenuous.

You're holding institutional actions of 35 years ago to the standards of today.

Grayson

Nermal wrote: »

You're holding institutional actions of 35 years ago to the standards of today.

That's fair though. Like I said before the state has apologised for doing thing in the past that were acceptable then but aren't now. Many states have actually.

SusieBlue

Nermal wrote: »

You're holding institutional actions of 35 years ago to the standards of today.

I'm not, I'm saying that stating she had the option of contraception (which was extremely difficult to get in the early 80's) and abortion (which was only legalised last year, over 30 years after the fact) is extremely disingenuous.

She could well have been fired and arrested for having an abortion.
It was specifically not an option as evidenced by the Bishops comments at the meeting he was somehow involved in.