Garda Apology

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Feckall to do with what “celibate” men were telling anyone at the time HD, sure 10 years earlier we’d already had a referendum to remove the recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church - passed by an overwhelming majority of 84% of the electorate.

You either completely misunderstand, or misrepresent, the purpose of that referendum.

It was intended (in the context of the s**t hitting the fan in Northern Ireland) to take a sectarian measure out of the constitution - and the RC church did not oppose this - this is all in the article you linked to, did you actually read it?

It was NOTHING to do with reducing the power and influence of the RCC over our institutions and society as a whole - and it didn't.

No, it had everything to do with people having notions about class, and their position in their communities and in society.

Yeah right. Why all the focus on sexual morality, and specifically those who did not adhere to the catholic version of sexual morality?

See the recent example that was made of Margaret Cash in the media and on here, and then come back and you can feel free to lecture me as though Irish society was somehow different 35 years ago from what it is today - people still generally condemn people they regard as being irresponsible.

There's a big difference between being irresponsible, and being a recidivist criminal with dozens of convictions for theft.

What’s more unbelievable are your hyperbolic efforts to suggest anyone was accusing Garda Moynihan of a criminal act, when nobody had done any such thing.

Do you know what inverted commas are for? :rolleyes: I said "crime". As far as AGS were concerned, she was treated like a criminal.

Of course she felt she was being treated like a criminal because she was being disciplined by her employer for a breach of the regulations which she was aware of when she joined AGS.

I'm sure her ex-partner was aware of those regulations, too.
Very different outcome for him, does having a penis justify that?
And as has been pointed out multiple times, "its the rules" does not justify immoral actions. What happened to her was immoral.

She wasn’t treated any differently than other member of the force who was in similar circumstances. She wanted to be treated differently. That’s exactly where the problem was - she wasn’t going to be treated differently.

Bull. Other unmarried female gardai at that time were allowed to keep their jobs while raising their child. Read the Irish Times article quoted at the start of this thread.

The other Garda who was involved was treated differently because his were a completely different and separate set of circumstances.

Yes, they both created a child but he didn't give birth to it, so slap on the wrist and he was grand

That aside, I can understand from his point of view why he wouldn’t stick around after she turned him down. What was he supposed to stick around for?

He had a moral and financial responsibility to his child.

We don’t know whether or not he would have supported his child because she decided to give the child up for adoption.

Did you listen to the interview? She said this was AFTER he said he wanted nothing to do with either her or the child.

Certainly one thing we do know is that both of them chose to be irresponsible on the night the child was conceived when in spite of the fact that they were using contraception, on the occasion in question when the child was conceived - they both chose not to use contraception.

You are making a very very big assumption, there.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You either completely misunderstand, or misrepresent, the purpose of that referendum.

It was intended (in the context of the s**t hitting the fan in Northern Ireland) to take a sectarian measure out of the constitution - and the RC church did not oppose this - this is all in the article you linked to, did you actually read it?

It was NOTHING to do with reducing the power and influence of the RCC over our institutions and society as a whole - and it didn't.

Yeah right. Why all the focus on sexual morality, and specifically those who did not adhere to the catholic version of sexual morality?

There's a big difference between being irresponsible, and being a recidivist criminal with dozens of convictions for theft.

Do you know what inverted commas are for? :rolleyes: I said "crime". As far as AGS were concerned, she was treated like a criminal.

I'm sure her ex-partner was aware of those regulations, too.
Very different outcome for him, does having a penis justify that?
And as has been pointed out multiple times, "its the rules" does not justify immoral actions. What happened to her was immoral.

Bull. Other unmarried female gardai at that time were allowed to keep their jobs while raising their child. Read the Irish Times article quoted at the start of this thread.

Yes, they both created a child but he didn't give birth to it, so slap on the wrist and he was grand

He had a moral and financial responsibility to his child.

Did you listen to the interview? She said this was AFTER he said he wanted nothing to do with either her or the child.

You are making a very very big assumption, there.

The father wanted to marry her and accept his responsibility. She denied him the chance to do so. Same as she denied him any part in his sons life. Her choice. Hers alone.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You either completely misunderstand, or misrepresent, the purpose of that referendum.

It was intended (in the context of the s**t hitting the fan in Northern Ireland) to take a sectarian measure out of the constitution - and the RC church did not oppose this - this is all in the article you linked to, did you actually read it?

It was NOTHING to do with reducing the power and influence of the RCC over our institutions and society as a whole - and it didn't.

You’re missing my point. Your claim was that most people in Irish society at the time did what they were told by “celibate” men, and the result of the referendum demonstrated that no, they didn’t. People cherrypicked what suited their own interests and individual morality, and chose to dress it up in religious values when it suited them. The reality of course is that they were people’s cultural values, and that’s why I said that nowadays people don’t even bother to dress their cultural values in religion, they dress their disdain for other people up in the idea that they’re morally superior to other people on the basis that they’re a taxpayer, and the people they feel safe to criticise as irresponsible, aren’t morally responsible taxpayers like them. It’s a class issue, not a religious issue.

Yeah right. Why all the focus on sexual morality, and specifically those who did not adhere to the catholic version of sexual morality?

Because of people’s cultural values, that’s why all the focus on sexual morality. The fact that people’s morals coincided with the Catholic version of sexual morality was no small coincidence - it’s how the Catholic Church gained the power it had in Irish society.

It was like modern day virtue signalling - people wanted to portray themselves as morally superior to everyone else. Religion was a convenient way to do it - no better way to make yourself feel better about yourself if you’re that sort of insecure person, than feeling like you were in a position to look down on everyone else. Nowadays there are all sorts of ideologies to portray ourselves as morally superior to everyone else. Just look at the amount of corporate entities, political parties and even the Gardai themselves looking to jump on the Pride bandwagon to portray themselves as morally superior to everyone else. Those who want to break away from Pride and bring it back to its origins view themselves as morally superior to the masses.

People want to signal to their peers just how virtuous they are, and it can’t have escaped your attention the sense of satisfaction some people get when closet homosexuals who speak out against homosexuality are outed. Leo played a blinder in that regard and played the media and the people of Ireland perfectly to his considerable advantage.

There's a big difference between being irresponsible, and being a recidivist criminal with dozens of convictions for theft.

Do you know what inverted commas are for? :rolleyes: I said "crime". As far as AGS were concerned, she was treated like a criminal.

Yeah, there is a big difference, the difference being that Garda Moynihan wasn’t treated like a criminal. She was treated like an adult who by her conduct had violated the regulations which applied to everyone in AGS, including her. She discovered that she wasn’t above everyone else in AGS and thinking that the rules that applied to everyone on the force, didn’t apply to her.

By your rationale, Paddy Jackson and co. were treated like criminals by the IRFU because they violated the terms and conditions of their employment. They weren’t treated like criminals, they were treated like adults who violated the terms and conditions of their employment. Garda Moynihan was treated like an adult who had violated the terms and conditions of her employment.

I'm sure her ex-partner was aware of those regulations, too.
Very different outcome for him, does having a penis justify that?
And as has been pointed out multiple times, "its the rules" does not justify immoral actions. What happened to her was immoral.

We don’t know what the full outcome for him actually was though, because we don’t have the transcript of his disciplinary hearing. We don’t have him coming out now in the public eye giving a contradictory account of her experiences from the testimony she gave in her disciplinary hearing. We don’t have him coming out in the public eye 35 years later looking for a personal apology for being disciplined for violating the terms and conditions of his employment. It’s just silly to argue that he was treated differently because he had a penis. We don’t know anything of his circumstances then, nor his circumstances now, and we know very little of his disciplinary hearing and how he chose to conduct himself when presented with the charge against him. We do know how Garda Moynihan behaved when presented with the charges against her, and she didn’t help herself IMO.

Bull. Other unmarried female gardai at that time were allowed to keep their jobs while raising their child. Read the Irish Times article quoted at the start of this thread.

I read it, and there’s not a whole lot about their circumstances or how they behaved when they were disciplined for their actions which violated the terms and conditions of their employment. It’s not unreasonable to assume that given the outcomes were different, they didn’t behave in the same manner as Garda Moynihan.

And before you suggest that I must never have done anything wrong to deserve a disciplinary hearing, I have, I violated the terms and conditions of my employment, was brought before a disciplinary hearing, and I managed to keep my job. I didn’t imagine I was treated like a criminal or that I was the real victim. I took responsibility for my actions. Garda Moynihan didn’t. That’s the difference. It’s not because I have a penis and she doesn’t.

Yes, they both created a child but he didn't give birth to it, so slap on the wrist and he was grand

We don’t know how he fared, because he hasn’t gone public with his side of the story.

He had a moral and financial responsibility to his child.

He was willing to take on that responsibility, but she turned him down. Then she tried to make herself out to be his victim. She was perfectly entitled to turn him down. She’s perfectly entitled to try and portray herself as a victim. Other people are entitled to point out that she’s not a victim of anyone. She’s a victim of herself. It’s her own victim mentality that makes her believe she shouldn’t have to take any responsibility for her actions, that everyone else wanted to take advantage of her and put her down (in spite of the reality that her superior officers gave her glowing references).

She too had a moral and financial responsibility to her child, but she chose her career over her child, and placed her child for adoption, when as you pointed out yourself earlier - other women took responsibility for their children, and they maintained their careers too. He was denied the opportunity to be morally and financially responsible for his child when Garda Moynihan chose to place their child for adoption and later came to regret her decision.

Did you listen to the interview? She said this was AFTER he said he wanted nothing to do with either her or the child.

I’d rather hear that from himself tbh. Certainly I heard it from Garda Moynihan that’s what he said, but given she has already shown she has a credibility issue with her different accounts between her sworn testimony at her disciplinary hearing and what she’s coming out with now, I’m inclined to be skeptical of her motives tbh. To me it appears as though it’s just another attempt to portray herself as a victim.

You are making a very very big assumption, there.

I’m really not, given that’s what she stated in her sworn testimony at her disciplinary hearing. I linked to it earlier, but you can read it here again -

Sworn testimony of bangharda Moynihan taken on 30th April 1985

Question - Did you become pregnant deliberately?

Answer - Why should someone want to become pregnant deliberately?

Question - Did you want to hold on to [NAME REDACTED]while you were in Templemore?

Answer - Well, I liked him

Question - Did you have a physical relationship with him in Dublin before he joined the guards?

Answer - Yes

Question - Were contraceptives used?

Answer - Yes

Question - Was there a question of contraceptives not being used?

Answer - Not that I can recall

Question - Did you not feel that you would become pregnant as a result of having sexual relations with [NAME REDACTED]?

Answer - He used contraceptives

Question - How did this pregnancy occur if contraceptives were used?

Answer - He did not use them the night I got pregnant

Question - Was that at your suggestion?

Answer - No

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/transcript-of-the-rt%C3%A9-majella-moynihan-documentary-1.3928238?mode=amp

Deleted User wrote: »

The father wanted to marry her and accept his responsibility. She denied him the chance to do so. Same as she denied him any part in his sons life. Her choice. Hers alone.

"Marry me or else you'll never get a cent off me and I'll turn my back on my own child"

What a bully.

She and the child were better off without him.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

"Marry me or else you'll never get a cent off me and I'll turn my back on my own child"

What a bully.

She and the child were better off without him.

Can’t seem to make up your mind whether she would have been a victim if she’d chosen to marry him, or was she a victim because she didn’t. Like Ms. Moynihan eventually realised - you can’t have it both ways!

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’re missing my point. Your claim was that most people in Irish society at the time did what they were told by “celibate” men, and the result of the referendum demonstrated that no, they didn’t.

The RCC did not oppose that referendum, so your attempt to spin it as some sort of rejection of the RCC fails miserably.

People cherrypicked what suited their own interests and individual morality, and chose to dress it up in religious values when it suited them.

Sure, they do, but a lot more people back then were actually religious (as opposed to just ticking the catholic box) and actually listened when the man in black spoke out on sexual morality.

Because of people’s cultural values, that’s why all the focus on sexual morality. The fact that people’s morals coincided with the Catholic version of sexual morality was no small coincidence - it’s how the Catholic Church gained the power it had in Irish society.

Right, society wasn't the way it was because of the church, it was all a coincidence? This is getting more ridiculous by the second.

People want to signal to their peers just how virtuous they are, and it can’t have escaped your attention the sense of satisfaction some people get when closet homosexuals who speak out against homosexuality are outed. Leo played a blinder in that regard and played the media and the people of Ireland perfectly to his considerable advantage.

Wtf are you on about? Are you saying Leo should have stayed in the closet? Most people are now mature enough to accept that a person's private life is their own business.

Yeah, there is a big difference, the difference being that Garda Moynihan wasn’t treated like a criminal.

She was charged with an offence. It is not the criminal law but it sure sounds similar, hence treated LIKE a criminal, not AS a criminal.
Why did they do this? She was an excellent garda who had glowing reports from her superiors but some creeping jesus type decided to make an example out of her.

She discovered that she wasn’t above everyone else in AGS and thinking that the rules that applied to everyone on the force, didn’t apply to her.

Except the rules weren't applied to everyone else.

By your rationale, Paddy Jackson and co. were treated like criminals by the IRFU because they violated the terms and conditions of their employment.

Were they told that they were being disciplined, or being charged?

We don’t have him coming out now in the public eye giving a contradictory account of her experiences from the testimony she gave in her disciplinary hearing.

What are you claiming is contradictory?

It’s just silly to argue that he was treated differently because he had a penis.

They were both involved in the same act but the outcomes were very different. Why was she threatened with dismissal instead of just a fine?

We do know how Garda Moynihan behaved when presented with the charges against her, and she didn’t help herself IMO.

I am sensing a pattern here :rolleyes:

What exactly are you claiming was wrong with the way she "behaved" when presented with the charges?

And before you suggest that I must never have done anything wrong to deserve a disciplinary hearing, I have, I

Don't care. This is not about you.

He was willing to take on that responsibility, but she turned him down.

She turned down marriage, he then refused to provide any support whatsoever for his child or the mother of his child.
What kind of moral degenerate puts T&Cs on whether he will support his child? That he had to get his jollies or else not a cent?

She’s a victim of herself.

There really is a pattern in your posts. Whatever a woman does she is always in the wrong.
You should just cut and paste "the brazen huzzy should've kept her knees together, she deserved everything she got" into every post, would save you and us a lot of time.

It’s her own victim mentality

Amateur psychoanalysis on someone you've never met, wow :rolleyes:

She too had a moral and financial responsibility to her child, but she chose her career over her child, and placed her child for adoption, when as you pointed out yourself earlier - other women took responsibility for their children, and they maintained their careers too.

She was in an impossible position between her father providing no support to her, her ex-partner providing no support to her, and her employer providing no support to her, and worse putting pressure on her.

She said in the RTE interview that she was in no fit mental state to make such a decision when signing the final adoption papers, she had no real choice.

Question - How did this pregnancy occur if contraceptives were used?

Answer - He did not use them the night I got pregnant

Question - Was that at your suggestion?

Answer - No

So he ran out of rubbers but wanted to get his jollies anyway.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Can’t seem to make up your mind whether she would have been a victim if she’d chosen to marry him, or was she a victim because she didn’t. Like Ms. Moynihan eventually realised - you can’t have it both ways!

Anyone is better off without that type of bullying, coercive behaviour in their lives.

His moral obligation to support his child and his child's mother did not end when she declined to marry him.

Do you think every separated man in Ireland should have the right to stop supporting their kids financially, because the kids' mother isn't riding them any more?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Anyone is better off without that type of bullying, coercive behaviour in their lives.

Based on her version of events this time at least, and your own amateur psychoanalysis of someone you don’t know based upon the word of someone else. Am I supposed to believe her too just because she’s a woman, or on what basis are you willing to believe she’s telling the truth now and she wasn’t at the time of her sworn testimony? On at least one occasion she isn’t telling the truth.

His moral obligation to support his child and his child's mother did not end when she declined to marry him.

I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. We just don’t have any evidence that he actually ever said it only the word of the person who is portraying herself as a victim of him too.

Do you think every separated man in Ireland should have the right to stop supporting their kids financially, because the kids' mother isn't riding them any more?

Nope, and he didn’t have that right either, even if he thought he had or said that he wasn’t going to support his child financially. He still didn’t owe Ms. Moynihan anything as they were only having casual sex. It wasn’t as though they were married, so they were never separated either, so he was under no legal or moral obligation to support her in any way whatsoever as they weren’t in any kind of a committed relationship.

Mrsmum

I think it's unfair really to speak of the father as everything we know of him is via MM. Majella's story is her story, from her perspective. It's not the full story. Human nature is such that when one tells about an upsetting incident, or a conflict situation, each sides opinion is completely coloured by their own interpretation of the facts and is rarely completely fair to the other side from whose perspective there may be perfectly valid or understandable reasons for what happened. Many couples go for counselling, each thinking the counsellor will sort out the other one, convinced they themselves are totally right and the other is all wrong only to be shown the truth is different.

For Majella to say she and the child got no support from him seems nonsensical to me as he would have married her. Marriage = 100% support. We have no knowledge of his feelings at the time, almost as if he doesn't matter in his own right. Maybe he was having sex with her because unlike her feelings for him, she was actually important to him. Maybe he was hurt or even embarrassed she rejected him. Maybe he was raised to marry a girl when you get her pregnant so unprotected sex was based on that for him. Maybe he thought he wouldn't like to have to explain to another woman down the road that he already had a child. Maybe he was ashamed opposite top brass that he couldn't get her to agree to make it right. Maybe he felt she was making a right fool of him. Or maybe he didn't want his child adopted but knew that was sure and certain if she didn't marry him. Or maybe it was really important to him to make his child legitimate. Majella's story makes no allowance for any of those possibilities. She had all sorts of feelings swirling around in her head. Or we not allowed think he had any.

Also I'm not sure she is doing her son any great favour speaking negatively of the man who is his biological father, the man who Majella and not he decided wasn't to be in his life. It doesn't help a reunion should her son want one with his father.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

on what basis are you willing to believe she’s telling the truth now and she wasn’t at the time of her sworn testimony? On at least one occasion she isn’t telling the truth.

What are you claiming here exactly? 2nd time of asking.

Nope, and he didn’t have that right either, even if he thought he had or said that he wasn’t going to support his child financially. He still didn’t owe Ms. Moynihan anything as they were only having casual sex. It wasn’t as though they were married, so they were never separated either, so he was under no legal or moral obligation to support her in any way whatsoever as they weren’t in any kind of a committed relationship.

You could not be more wrong.
If you father a child you have a moral and legal obligation to support it.
"Just casual sex" - so our hero here gets to walk away and she's left with the consequences :rolleyes:
Do you have any sympathy for women in crisis pregnancy at all? You didn't show much in the 8th threads, but your posts on this thread are descending to a new low.

Mrsmum wrote: »

For Majella to say she and the child got no support from him seems nonsensical to me as he would have married her. Marriage = 100% support.

Support with some heavy strings attached. In 80s Ireland that meant "conjugal rights" (i.e. husband's legal right to rape) and marriage was until death, no matter what.

Maybe he was hurt or even embarrassed she rejected him.

Probably, but his immature reaction was to cut off any support for his own child. Totally immature and irresponsible.

Or maybe he didn't want his child adopted

Well you'd think then he'd be offering every possible financial and other support (with NO strings attached) to ensure she would have a real choice of bringing up the child herself.

Also I'm not sure she is doing her son any great favour speaking negatively of the man who is his biological father, the man who Majella and not he decided wasn't to be in his life. It doesn't help a reunion should her son want one with his father.

No, she decided not to marry him. That didn't give him the right to tell her and his child to f**k off because of his poor hurt feelings.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The RCC did not oppose that referendum, so your attempt to spin it as some sort of rejection of the RCC fails miserably.

It was an attempt to point out that people didn’t just do what they were told by the Church, not even the more conservative members of the Catholic Church who were opposed to the referendum. You’re trying to say most people did what they were told by the church, when clearly the facts state otherwise. Ms. Moynihan wouldn’t have ended up in the position she was in for example if she did what she was told to do by the Church, and by no means was she alone in that regard, but that contradicts your narrative of a nation of illiterate spud munchers in thrall to the Catholic Church. This was in the 1980’s, not the 1880’s.

Sure, they do, but a lot more people back then were actually religious (as opposed to just ticking the catholic box) and actually listened when the man in black spoke out on sexual morality.

They weren’t, clearly. They presented themselves to the public as pious, certainly, we know that much, but religious? Clearly they weren’t.

Right, society wasn't the way it was because of the church, it was all a coincidence? This is getting more ridiculous by the second.

Nope. The Church was the way it was because of society. Society was the way it was before the Catholic Church ever evolved into what it became as a result of people wanting to portray themselves as morally superior to everyone else,

Wtf are you on about? Are you saying Leo should have stayed in the closet? Most people are now mature enough to accept that a person's private life is their own business.

No, I’m making the point that yes, you’re right, most people are now mature enough to accept that a person’s private life is their own business, and then there are the minority who get a thrill out of seeing a public figure disgraced. Like Leo who was at one time against the idea of homosexual couples adopting children, and when he was about to be outed by the media as a gay man himself, he beat them to the punch. That’s how he played it brilliantly.

She was charged with an offence. It is not the criminal law but it sure sounds similar, hence treated LIKE a criminal, not AS a criminal.
Why did they do this? She was an excellent garda who had glowing reports from her superiors but some creeping jesus type decided to make an example out of her.

No, it’s not criminal law, and that’s the only thing that matters. She wasn’t treated like a criminal because she wasn’t a criminal, there’s no “like” or “as” about it.

Except the rules weren't applied to everyone else.

Yes they were, and some people abided by the rules, and some people didn’t. It doesn’t mean the rules didn’t apply to every member of AGS equally.

Were they told that they were being disciplined, or being charged?

Ahh seriously now HD, that’s a pedantic way to avoid having to address the point i was making. I have no doubt you understand the point I was making all the same - they weren’t criminals either, and I don’t know too many people would take them seriously if they came out with the line that they felt they were treated like criminals during questioning into what they thought were their private lives.

What are you claiming is contradictory?

Further down in the same link I posted earlier -

Question - Was there pressure applied to you to give the child up for adoption?

Answer - There was no pressure.

They were both involved in the same act but the outcomes were very different. Why was she threatened with dismissal instead of just a fine?

I know why she was threatened with dismissal, I don’t know that he wasn’t, because I don’t have a source for a transcript of his disciplinary hearing. I can only surmise that he was treated more leniently because he took responsibility for his actions and Ms. Moynihan didn’t. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable conclusion that’s based upon their actions, not their gender.

I am sensing a pattern here :rolleyes:

What exactly are you claiming was wrong with the way she "behaved" when presented with the charges?

I’m saying her answers were evasive and that she didn’t appear to try to help herself.

She turned down marriage, he then refused to provide any support whatsoever for his child or the mother of his child.
What kind of moral degenerate puts T&Cs on whether he will support his child? That he had to get his jollies or else not a cent?

Read the article I posted earlier. In her own words she wasn’t interested in seeking financial support from him. She appears to have wanted emotional support after she’d just turned down his offer of marriage. She can’t surely have been that dense that she thought that her rejection wouldn’t be upsetting. I’ll reserve judgment on whether someone is a moral degenerate based upon their actions, not just on the basis of someone else’s word.

There really is a pattern in your posts. Whatever a woman does she is always in the wrong.
You should just cut and paste "the brazen huzzy should've kept her knees together, she deserved everything she got" into every post, would save you and us a lot of time.

...

Amateur psychoanalysis on someone you've never met, wow :rolleyes:

I’m sensing irony in your post HD :pac:

Not to avoid your point but I’m not going to defend myself against something I haven’t done. My judgment isn’t based on whether a person who has done wrong has either a penis or a vulva, I don’t care whether they’re a man or a woman. The salient point is that they’ve done wrong, and being in possession of a vulva doesn’t get them off the hook.

You’re also ignoring the fact that I was just as critical of Pasdy Jackson and co, and George Hook, but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed those posts.

She was in an impossible position between her father providing no support to her, her ex-partner providing no support to her, and her employer providing no support to her, and worse putting pressure on her.

She said in the RTE interview that she was in no fit mental state to make such a decision when signing the final adoption papers, she had no real choice.

She wasn’t in any impossible position. She had plenty of options, many more options than a lot of people. She wants to make out she had no real choice. The reality is she made some terrible decisions, and she paid a terrible price for having made those decisions. She made decisions she believed were in her best interests at the time, and when it all went tits up, she doesn’t appear to have wanted to take any responsibility for the consequences of her actions. I can understand that when she was 22, but to be beating that same drum some 35 years later? I would think she would have grown up in the meantime.

So he ran out of rubbers but wanted to get his jollies anyway.

And of course she again had no responsibility in that scenario then either, right? She had a responsibility towards herself to tell him she wasn’t going to have sex with him without a condom. She too it appears, wanted her jollies just as much as he did.

I sense a running theme in your posts at this stage too HD.

Mrsmum

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Support with some heavy strings attached. In 80s Ireland that meant "conjugal rights" (i.e. husband's legal right to rape) and marriage was until death, no matter what.

Probably, but his immature reaction was to cut off any support for his own child. Totally immature and irresponsible.

Well you'd think then he'd be offering every possible financial and other support (with NO strings attached) to ensure she would have a real choice of bringing up the child herself.

No, she decided not to marry him. That didn't give him the right to tell her and his child to f**k off because of his poor hurt feelings.

Polite society did not agree to women having babies out of wedlock and by choice bringing them up alone. Those who were doing it were those who had been left in the lurch, abandoned and at best were pitied. That was the context of the times Majella supposedly wanted to bring up the baby herself. Perhaps the guy wasn't a 'new' man able to adapt to what now is pretty normal. That's ok. He's a human being in this story, not a cardboard dummy. They were in a mess of a situation and they did what they did at the time based on their personalities and backgrounds. I doubt either of them were at their best at such a stressful time. She comes across as very vulnerable and fragile still and imo her story is more than a bit one dimensional.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What are you claiming here exactly? 2nd time of asking.

It’s written there in the post - she isn’t being truthful on at least one occasion, which presents a credibility issue.

You could not be more wrong.
If you father a child you have a moral and legal obligation to support it.
"Just casual sex" - so our hero here gets to walk away and she's left with the consequences :rolleyes:
Do you have any sympathy for women in crisis pregnancy at all? You didn't show much in the 8th threads, but your posts on this thread are descending to a new low.

What am I wrong about? I said he had no legal or moral obligation towards her, Majella Moynihan. I didn’t say anything about a child. I’m fully aware that both parents are at least legally obligated to provide for their children.

It was just casual sex. Our hero does get to walk away because our heroine decided that she didn’t want to marry him. Morally in that scenario then, he was only responsible for the child, a moral and legal responsibility he was relieved of when Ms. Moynihan chose to place their child for adoption. What was he supposed to do? Stick around like an emotional support animal at her beck and call? That would have been emotional abuse.

Do I have any sympathy for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy? Of course I do. I have every sympathy for women experiencing crisis pregnancy. I just don’t share your opinions is all.

forget about the case in question, weve posters in here now who want to go to war with irish history bedad

bizarre impulse.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Polite society did not agree to women having babies out of wedlock and by choice bringing them up alone.

This is 1984 you are talking about. There were plenty of single mothers by then, some of them were serving gardai...

What was achieved by threatening to fire her? Hadn't she been through enough?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s written there in the post - she isn’t being truthful on at least one occasion, which presents a credibility issue.

As if, when she was desperately trying to keep her job, she'd take on the entire Garda hierarchy by telling the truth about senior officers harassing and pressuring her. We've seen what that leads to, even in much more recent years.

I mean, really... All she wanted was for it to be over with and to be let get on with her job.

What am I wrong about? I said he had no legal or moral obligation towards her, Majella Moynihan.

He had an obligation to provide her with child support but instead he said she'd get nothing off him.

Morally in that scenario then, he was only responsible for the child, a moral and legal responsibility he was relieved of when Ms. Moynihan chose to place their child for adoption. What was he supposed to do? Stick around like an emotional support animal at her beck and call? That would have been emotional abuse.

Oh ffs. If he was any sort of a man he would have made it clear he was not going to shirk his financial responsibility to the child he fathered. If he had done so, and if her employer had been in any way supportive instead of aggressively hostile, she might have decided to keep the child.

Do I have any sympathy for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy? Of course I do. I have every sympathy for women experiencing crisis pregnancy. I just don’t share your opinions is all.

Not really, when you said it was ok to punish her because she gave birth.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As if, when she was desperately trying to keep her job, she'd take on the entire Garda hierarchy by telling the truth about senior officers harassing and pressuring her. We've seen what that leads to, even in much more recent years.

I mean, really... All she wanted was for it to be over with and to be let get on with her job.

Y’know I get that she wanted to keep her job, I really do, and I can understand that she felt under pressure from all sides and felt she had to say whatever she had to say to keep her job in spite of what she felt was the endless harassment of actually being held accountable for her actions. I get that she made a mistake, she could have made a whole boatload of mistakes and I’d still understand that she wanted to keep her job because it was all she ever wanted to do. I get that she was in an awful predicament and she feels that she was treated unfairly.

I don’t agree with you that she wanted it all to be over, that could easily have been done. I can understand why she wasn’t willing to let it go though, because she felt she had been wronged by everyone and she was a victim. That’s why she was so easily convinced to go public again, because this time she was convinced that she’d take down everyone who had wronged her and expose them all and get the justice she felt she deserved. That’s why she says she feels vindicated now and yet even still she is considering legal action instead of just letting it go and getting on with her life in private.

It could be over in the morning if she wanted, but she doesn’t appear to want that because for her, she still has so much left unresolved. I don’t think she’s going to get the outcome she wants.

He had an obligation to provide her with child support but instead he said she'd get nothing off him.

No, he didn’t have any obligation to provide child support for a child that doesn’t exist remember? She was pregnant at the time, and there was no legal or moral obligation obligation upon him to provide for the foetus. I’ve already explained that I’d rather hear it coming from him that he said it, as opposed to coming from Ms. Moynihan claiming that he said it.

All we know for certain is that she claims she didn’t want any financial support, she didn’t want to marry him, and she feels she was treated badly because she claims didn’t provide her with any emotional support during her pregnancy. Again, she’s the victim, and he’s portrayed as you put it - a moral degenerate. Sounds to me like she wanted him in the permanent friendzone. I wouldn’t be surprised he wasn’t down with that. I wouldn’t be. I’d still provide for my child though. We just don’t know that he didn’t, because he wasn’t given the opportunity.

A proposal of marriage doesn’t infer that he just wanted her for sex either btw (quite the opposite if some people are to be believed :pac:), if anything it infers quite the opposite - that he actually cared for her and wanted more than just the casual sex they were having at the time. He obviously wanted a family, she didn’t. That was her decision and she made it. To say she didn’t have choices is ridiculous. She just made bad decisions that she didn’t want to take any responsibility for them, and still doesn’t appear to want to take any responsibility for her decisions. 35 years later I wouldn’t be entertaining her either. I’d have long gotten on with my life and if she wanted to go public I’d let her off, but that’s just how I’d deal with it.

Oh ffs. If he was any sort of a man he would have made it clear he was not going to shirk his financial responsibility to the child he fathered. If he had done so, and if her employer had been in any way supportive instead of aggressively hostile, she might have decided to keep the child.

That’s an awful lot of “ifs” to try and make a hypothetical argument a reality. The reality we do know however is that in spite of her claims, she rejected anyone who tried to support her. The reality we do know is that Ms. Moynihan pointed fingers at other members of AGS who she felt weren’t treated as unfairly as she felt she had been treated. What we do know is that in spite of her claims of unfair treatment, she remained a member of AGS for another 15 years. What we don’t know, is anything about the father of the child. I’m just guessing he would prefer to keep it that way.

Not really, when you said it was ok to punish her because she gave birth.

I never said anything even remotely like that? In spite of Ms. Moynihan’s claims that she was being punished for giving birth, she was actually being disciplined for a breach of her employers regulations. It appears she enjoyed the status of being a member of AGS, but didn’t want any of the responsibility that came with being a member of AGS. That’s nothing like even suggesting that it would be ok to punish a woman for giving birth, that’s just stupid now, honestly! You’re clutching at straws coming out with that shìte.

1641

I'm not sure what the big argument is about here. Next to nobody looking back now would think that this woman was treated well or fairly. But that is by contemporary standards. Many wouldn't have approved of how she was treated at the time - but that would not have been the prevailing view then. I suspect that most people at the time would at least have been socially aware of women who experienced similar attitudes and practices to Majella.

I was around at the time and reasonably aware of current events. This matter was reported in the Irish Times. I can remember no big ussue about it then.I don't recall it being discussed - maybe I heard it in passing at the time - maybe not. But I certainly was aware of women who were faced with similar choices of child v career. It was terrible but no surprise at the time.

As regards men, extremely few "stood by the woman" short of wedlock. It was one thing or the other for the majority.

marieholmfan

Where were RTE in 1984? This was 35 years ago. It's a personal tragedy but it isn't news.

ohnonotgmail

marieholmfan wrote: »

Where were RTE in 1984? This was 35 years ago. It's a personal tragedy but it isn't news.

so you keep saying.

marieholmfan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you keep saying.

I know. I'll unfollow and leave you to it.

Her father abandoned her and her sisters and set up home with a second wife. Maybe she just didn’t trust men?
Also, far from not having family support, she actually lived with her father after leaving the children’s home.
Where will it end? Will she go after the state over her rearing in a home? Followed by hospital where she gave birth?

1641 wrote: »

I'm not sure what the big argument is about here. Next to nobody looking back now would think that this woman was treated well or fairly. But that is by contemporary standards.

Nope
She was treated badly even by the standards of the time.
Single motherhood was not a new thing in 1984.
Other unmarried gardai at that time were allowed keep their jobs after giving birth, some were allowed move closer to home, work regular office hours, etc. in order to make life easier for them.
Not her.
She was pressurised for months by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers.
Then, after she did what they wanted her to do, they still decided to discipline her and came very close to sacking her.
Then continued to treat her badly afterwards.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y’know I get that she wanted to keep her job, I really do, and I can understand that she felt under pressure from all sides and felt she had to say whatever she had to say to keep her job in spite of what she felt was the endless harassment of actually being held accountable for her actions. I get that she made a mistake

No, she didn't make a 'mistake'. The two of them made a 'mistake'.

I was going to say getting pregnant was her 'mistake', but that's not it - giving birth was the real mistake, AGS would have preferred her to sneak over to England for an abortion and then nobody would have heard about any 'scandal'.

Vile stuff.

I don’t agree with you that she wanted it all to be over, that could easily have been done.

How? Short of resigning?

I can understand why she wasn’t willing to let it go though, because she felt she had been wronged by everyone and she was a victim. That’s why she was so easily convinced to go public again

Wow, do you know her or something :rolleyes:

Why are you looking at what she is doing now in 2019 and projecting that back into your imaginary scenario in 1984?

Wasn't willing to let it go, what is your evidence for this sentiment and what actions did she take instead of 'letting it go'?

It's baloney.

because this time she was convinced that she’d take down everyone who had wronged her and expose them all and get the justice she felt she deserved. That’s why she says she feels vindicated now and yet even still she is considering legal action instead of just letting it go and getting on with her life in private.

Again. Empathy. Where is it?

Do you think victims of other sorts of abuses should just STFU as well and "get over it", too?

She's perfectly entitled to speak out, and to take whatever legal action she wants.

It could be over in the morning if she wanted, but she doesn’t appear to want that because for her, she still has so much left unresolved. I don’t think she’s going to get the outcome she wants.

Maybe not, but she was cheated out of a career and a pension and that is a substantial finacial loss, and great damage was done to her wellbeing.

No, he didn’t have any obligation to provide child support for a child that doesn’t exist remember? She was pregnant at the time, and there was no legal or moral obligation obligation upon him to provide for the foetus.

There's no need to be a smartarse. You know I was talking about the future child - the one that he had an obligation to support should she not give it for adoption.

I’ve already explained that I’d rather hear it coming from him that he said it, as opposed to coming from Ms. Moynihan claiming that he said it.

If you think she's a liar, why not say so instead of just constantly implying it?

You've been doing her down, blaming her, belittling her and calling her mental state then and now into question constantly.

I’d still provide for my child though.

But he refused to.

I never said anything even remotely like that? In spite of Ms. Moynihan’s claims that she was being punished for giving birth, she was actually being disciplined for a breach of her employers regulations. It appears she enjoyed the status of being a member of AGS, but didn’t want any of the responsibility that came with being a member of AGS. That’s nothing like even suggesting that it would be ok to punish a woman for giving birth, that’s just stupid now, honestly! You’re clutching at straws coming out with that sh.

There's a big difference between £90 and dismissal. Both committed the same act. The difference is that one ejaculated, the other gave birth.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope
She was treated badly even by the standards of the time.
Single motherhood was not a new thing in 1984.
Other unmarried gardai at that time were allowed keep their jobs after giving birth, some were allowed move closer to home, work regular office hours, etc. in order to make life easier for them.
Not her.
She was pressurised for months by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers.
Then, after she did what they wanted her to do, they still decided to discipline her and came very close to sacking her.
Then continued to treat her badly afterwards.

I think that she was paranoid and felt guilty. At times she claimed to have no contact with her family, yet she lived with her father after leaving the children’s home and her boyfriend though enough of their relationship to actually ask her fathers permission to ask her to marry him.
Her mental health was fragile and in light of this she’d be well advised to take a step back.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that she was paranoid and felt guilty. At times she claimed to have no contact with her family, yet she lived with her father after leaving the children’s home and her boyfriend though enough of their relationship to actually ask her fathers permission to ask her to marry him.
Her mental health was fragile and in light of this she’d be well advised to take a step back.

Yeah, jaysus forbid the institution of the gardai do likewise.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that she was paranoid and felt guilty. At times she claimed to have no contact with her family, yet she lived with her father after leaving the children’s home and her boyfriend though enough of their relationship to actually ask her fathers permission to ask her to marry him.
Her mental health was fragile and in light of this she’d be well advised to take a step back.

The profession of psychoanalysis should be very concerned about the number of amateur practitioners on Boards, they'll be put out of business before long at this rate.

You quoted my post, but didn't address a single point of my post.