Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Solicitor asked to remove underwear....

245

Comments

  • #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Noone should ever be asked to remove their underwear.
    How many women do you see taking off their bras in airports?

    If the machine is still alarming, a female prison officer could use the small handheld scanner, then a quick pat down.
    Not difficult, everyone understands, and no embarrassing or making a show of anyone

    Actually the correct response, instead of doing every thing possible to let her in, is to send her away.


  • #33
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,349 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    Goddamn Patriarchy at it again I see.

    Glazers Out!



  • #34
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Actually the correct response, instead of doing every thing possible to let her in, is to send her away.

    But the prison service get slated for still allowing her entry to her client instead of turning them away. Its just someone looking for attention.


  • #35
    Thoie
    Registered Users Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    People are taken for searches in airports because of the metal detector going off. My 6 year old was.

    No one sees the women taking their bras off except the female officer searching her and no one saw this lady taking her bra off either.

    Its a prison and it has strict rules that apply to us all. Jesus, yourself and myself cant even get in half the time

    I had bras that set off airport metal detectors, and not once have I ever had to take off my bra, let alone parade around without it. In each case I was either wanded or patted down.

    For me the issue is that she had to continue the visit without a bra by the sounds of things.


  • #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    From the article:

    The solicitor said she was then told she would not be able to enter the prison if the monitor continued to sound, "so I would have to take my underwear off had I wanted to gain access".

    Further on:

    The solicitor later found out a male colleague had previously attended to visit the same client and the alarm sounded three times on passing through the scanner. At no stage was any such request made of him and he was admitted entry.

    So why was the male colleague treated differently?

    There is no excuse for how she was treated. I hope she sues the arse out of them.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The prison officer advised her that was what was probably setting off the alarm as he has seen it many times before and advised her how she could solve the problem alone in a private area while adhering to the prison policies that are in place to stop people being stabbed to death.

    The fact that her male college was allowed in when the alarm sounded is someone breaking the policies and procedures of the prison and they should be reprimanded, not let more people in when the same happens.

    She needs someone to tell her to be quiet before she makes a bigger fool of herself in front of her colleagues and the minister for justice.


  • #38
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,678 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    From the article:

    The solicitor said she was then told she would not be able to enter the prison if the monitor continued to sound, "so I would have to take my underwear off had I wanted to gain access".

    Further on:

    The solicitor later found out a male colleague had previously attended to visit the same client and the alarm sounded three times on passing through the scanner. At no stage was any such request made of him and he was admitted entry.

    So why was the male colleague treated differently?

    There is no excuse for how she was treated. I hope she sues the arse out of them.

    He might have been treated different because he wasnt wearing a bra?


  • #39
    Kimbot
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 18,427 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kimbot


    Deleted User wrote: »
    From the article:

    The solicitor said she was then told she would not be able to enter the prison if the monitor continued to sound, "so I would have to take my underwear off had I wanted to gain access".

    Further on:

    The solicitor later found out a male colleague had previously attended to visit the same client and the alarm sounded three times on passing through the scanner. At no stage was any such request made of him and he was admitted entry.

    So why was the male colleague treated differently?

    There is no excuse for how she was treated. I hope she sues the arse out of them.

    The metal detectors they use show the area of the body where the alarm is been set off. At no stage was he requested to take his underwear off because if it was all males on the search area that they he could have been patted down which we are not informed of in the article.


  • #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Thoie wrote: »
    For me the issue is that she had to continue the visit without a bra by the sounds of things.

    She was given the choice to continue the visit without bringing in a metal wire to a secure facility.

    The underwire could have been removed if she didn't want to enter without a bra.


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Thoie wrote: »
    I had bras that set off airport metal detectors, and not once have I ever had to take off my bra, let alone parade around without it. In each case I was either wanded or patted down.

    For me the issue is that she had to continue the visit without a bra by the sounds of things.

    Fine. I don't see your point really. Your not entering a prison and I presume are not suggesting that people aren't taken to be searched in airports sometimes.

    Again, my 6 year old was. She didn't care, found it interesting. We were with her of course and staff perfectly polite and friendly.

    At the moment however, we only have one side of this leaked story. A story leaked by the solicitors side


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,411 ✭✭✭tritium


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Actually the correct response, instead of doing every thing possible to let her in, is to send her away.

    Apparently it was urgent because it relates to a bail application. I’d imagine no matter what they did they’d have had a ****storm of some sort. Sounds like it could be pure entitlement tbh but I’ll see what the facts say once we have them all


  • #43
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,411 ✭✭✭tritium


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    From the article:

    The solicitor said she was then told she would not be able to enter the prison if the monitor continued to sound, "so I would have to take my underwear off had I wanted to gain access".

    Further on:

    The solicitor later found out a male colleague had previously attended to visit the same client and the alarm sounded three times on passing through the scanner. At no stage was any such request made of him and he was admitted entry.

    So why was the male colleague treated differently?

    There is no excuse for how she was treated. I hope she sues the arse out of them.

    Because someone may not have followed procedure previously they should have let this one go to?

    What a bizarre view


  • #44
    Badly Drunk Boy
    Registered Users Posts: 6,441 ✭✭✭Badly Drunk Boy


    Deleted User wrote: »
    From the article:

    The solicitor later found out a male colleague had previously attended to visit the same client and the alarm sounded three times on passing through the scanner. At no stage was any such request made of him and he was admitted entry.
    whatnow! wrote: »
    The fact that her male college was allowed in when the alarm sounded is someone breaking the policies and procedures of the prison and they should be reprimanded, not let more people in when the same happens.
    That's hearsay and cannot be entered into evidence! She didn't witness her colleague being allowed in after the alarm sounded.


  • #45
    FishOnABike
    Registered Users Posts: 4,348 ✭✭✭FishOnABike


    bubblypop wrote: »
    Noone should ever be asked to remove their underwear.
    How many women do you see taking off their bras in airports?

    If the machine is still alarming, a female prison officer could use the small handheld scanner, then a quick pat down.
    Not difficult, everyone understands, and no embarrassing or making a show of anyone

    I think the sort of patdown that would be needed to find possible contraband e.g. a mobile phone as small as your thumb, a coiled up garotte, etc... would be far more invasive than a helpful suggestion, based on experience, of what legitimate item of clothing might be triggering the detector alarm and how that might be easily resolved.


  • #46
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irelandrover wrote: »
    He might have been treated different because he wasnt wearing a bra?

    How do you know he wasn't?

    Who knows what anyone wears under their clothes?

    But that aside, he shouldn't have been treated any differently. But he was.

    Because he was a man.

    Its as simple as that.


  • #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Niner leprauchan wrote: »
    Its a prison and it has strict rules that apply to us all.

    If that is so why didn't these strict rules apply to the male when he kept setting off the sensor?


  • #48
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,349 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    How do you know he wasn't?

    Who knows what anyone wears under their clothes?

    But that aside, he shouldn't have been treated any differently. But he was.

    Because he was a man.

    Its as simple as that.

    I think we might need more evidence to make a determination here.

    Contrary to popular opinion, being a man isn't a ticket to do whatever you like.

    Glazers Out!



  • #49
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,678 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Deleted User wrote: »
    How do you know he wasn't?

    Who knows what anyone wears under their clothes?

    But that aside, he shouldn't have been treated any differently. But he was.

    Because he was a man.

    Its as simple as that.

    You don't know that. The article says he set off the scanner three times. That to me suggests that when he set it off each time he had to make adjustments. It doesn't state that in the end he set it off and they just let him through anyway.

    All the article states is that no such request was made of him that was made of her. Since the request was to remove her bra in the ladies toilet then its understandable the same request wasn't made of him.


  • #50
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,465 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    How do you know he wasn't?

    Who knows what anyone wears under their clothes?

    But that aside, he shouldn't have been treated any differently. But he was.

    Because he was a man.

    Its as simple as that.

    Objection. Speculation from the witness.


  • #51
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,349 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    PCeeeee wrote: »
    Objection. Speculation from the witness.

    Sustained.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • #52
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,349 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    irelandrover wrote: »
    You don't know that. The article says he set off the scanner three times. That to me suggests that when he set it off each time he had to make adjustments. It doesn't state that in the end he set it off and they just let him through anyway.

    All the article states is that no such request was made of him that was made of her. Since the request was to remove her bra in the ladies toilet then its understandable the same request wasn't made of him.

    He obviously just reminded them that he was a man and they waved him through. All the men in the prison just walked out because they were men.

    That's what men do, we let all other men do whatever they like because they're men.

    Glazers Out!



  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    I think we might need more evidence to make a determination here.

    Maybe you do. I don't.

    Like I said, I hope she sues the arse out of them, and gets a very large settlement.

    It's disgusting how many posters here are trying to make out she is just an annoying little woman making a big fuss over nothing.

    We obviously haven't come very far.


  • #54
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,378 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Furasta wrote: »
    The staff did their job not allowing it in because it could be removed from the bra and passed to the prisoner and possibly used as a weapon.


    "This is a hold up"


  • #55
    intellectual dosser
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭intellectual dosser


    Reading this thread people seem to think it would be normal practice for women to have to remove their underwear to pass through security?

    :confused:


  • #56
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,349 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Maybe you do. I don't.

    Like I said, I hope she sues the arse out of them, and gets a very large settlement.

    It's disgusting how many posters here are trying to make out she is just an annoying little woman making a big fuss over nothing.

    We obviously haven't come very far.

    You don't need any evidence beyond hearsay to make a determination?

    You hope she "sues the arse out of them"?

    If she did initiate litigation she would need to prove that her male colleague was indeed allowed entry based solely upon his gender. As a member of the legal profession I'm sure she is aware of that fact.

    Are you willing as a tax payer to foot the bill for her "very large settlement"? Because it's public money that will be paid out to her.

    I take offense to the notion that people are taking issue with this story because of her gender and that we "obviously haven't come very far".

    Get over yourself.

    Glazers Out!



  • #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If that is so why didn't these strict rules apply to the male when he kept setting off the sensor?

    How do you know they werent? Because the person seeking to make the drama said so? You know what her profession calls that? hearsay

    I on the other hand have said, lets wait to judge until we have the full story.

    So its you thats being sexist, not I


  • #58
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,349 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    intellectual dosser wrote: »
    Reading this thread people seem to think it would be normal practice for women to have to remove their underwear to pass through security?

    :confused:

    You would also be lead to believe that men get to do whatever they like because of their gender.

    Glazers Out!



  • #59
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,678 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    intellectual dosser wrote: »
    Reading this thread people seem to think it would be normal practice for women to have to remove their underwear to pass through security?

    :confused:

    I'd suggest that not being allowed entry to a prison when you set off metal detectors is a fairly standard safety feature of prisons.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    nullzero wrote: »
    You don't need any evidence beyond hearsay to make a determination?

    You hope she "sues the arse out of them"?

    If she did initiate litigation she would need to prove that her male colleague was indeed allowed entry based solely upon his gender. As a member of the legal profession I'm sure she is aware of that fact.

    Are you willing as a tax payer to foot the bill for her "very large settlement"? Because it's public money that will be paid out to her.

    I take offense to the notion that people are taking issue with this story because of her gender and that we "obviously haven't come very far".

    Get over yourself.

    Go back to your cave. You're obviously not evolved enough to leave it yet.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    intellectual dosser
    Registered Users Posts: 1,826 ✭✭✭intellectual dosser


    irelandrover wrote: »
    I'd suggest that not being allowed entry to a prison when you set off metal detectors is a fairly standard safety feature of prisons.

    Metal detectors assist security in finding forbidden objects. There isn't a blanket ban on metal.

    Find a different way of confirming its a wire in her underwear in a more dignified manner. A female officer doing a check - anything other than what happened.


Advertisement