Report of the Independent Review Group of the Defence Forces

Actually very surprised there isn't more comment and reaction to this report, and indeed the women of honour story overall.

It's interesting hearing the views and opinion of insiders or former military personell on here even if some of the jargon or terminology is over my head.

Coming at it as I am, with absolutely no experience of military service or even the RDF but with quite a lot of first hand experience of working and interacting with the ex officer class of the Irish military, I would have to say that very little of it came as much of a surprise to me. I have sadly found that the arrogance and sense of superiority engendered within the officer class in the Irish defence forces tends to extend far beyond their military career, invariably when they retire and are subsumed into private industry, or more likely into roles in the public service, enabled by a very influental and powerful old boys network who look after their own. That and the attitude of some many of these former officers to women in particular is something that belongs in the last century, or indeed the one before that. The levels of misogony and chauvanism and sexism that I have encountered from these "lads" as a male myself is unbelievable and is invariaby accompanied with the notion that it is "nothing but a bit of craic" and sure it's her problem "if she cant take a joke".

Indeed in the last week I'd say there are multitudes of serving and former officers frothing at the mouth and absolutely raging at the incursion into and spotlight being trained on their hallowed secretive club, and ranting at "that crowd of bitches" and proof if any were needed that "woman have no place in the military" oh and that a bit of discipline in essential within the military and is now being dressed up as "bullying" by whimps and snowflakes that just couldn't take it.

I'd also say that unfortunately this attitude and behaviour is so engendered and enshrined within the upper officer echelons of the defence forces that enlightened officers are in the minority and any effort to root it out would require a decimation and early retirement for a vast swathe of the officer class that would likely have the sort of destructive effect on the force that Stalin's 1937 purges had on the Russian military. I think a bit like the reform of the RUC into the PSNI, a lot of old heads with old ideas are gonna have to go and, considering the brain and personnel drain that the defence forces are already undergoing, one would wonder would it be even able to survive such purge to emerge as an effective defence force afterwards?

By describing the simple fact that the legislation requires an I.G. to be appointed with a Military rank, so he or she would have to be of rank OF-9 (4 Star General or full Admiral) to be anything but subordinate to the incumbent Defence Forces Chief of Staff.

AGS have commenced an investigation into predatorial behaviour in the DF following receipt of 26 complaints covering 50 years, with more anticipated.

No doubt a good few of these allegations are against former members, but will be interesting to see if theres a uptick in early retirements among certain cohorts.

Not sure, the Commissioner seems to have already ruled out involvement of the MPs, and RTE was suggesting the AGS would seek powers if needed to investigate overseas allegations as well?

The I.G could be appointed with a rank equal to the COS. In any event, even if the I.G. had a lower rank than the COS it wouldn't of itself make him subordinate. It might make him lower in rank but would not necessarily give the COS operational control over his activities. The Provost martial can arrest the Chief of Staff or other officers senior to him. They can't order him not to. An I.G> does what the government tells him. So does the Chief. All the government has to do is prescribe exclusive functions for each and there is no subordination.

The women of honour group aren’t happy with the selection of the DOD SG for the panel:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41110201.html

A bit like putting the fox on the committee to review security in the hen-house.

It doesn't matter, the DoD is part of the Defence Structure.

We do not yet know, whether or if the Department itself was involved in ignoring, blocking or otherwise obstructing or failing complainants over the decades long duration of these allegations.

Despite the recency of McCrum's appointment as Sec Gen, she is the Chief Executive of the Department now and may well have to account for and represent her Department for actions in the past. Thats just the way corporate responsibility works.

And so, for these reasons and others, it is improper that she or any Officer of the DoD would be represented on any group or body investigating the allegations or having anything to do with advocating for complainants.

If you want a sanity check, chair it with a retired judge or senior counsel. Get representation on it from the professional fields of HR, counselling, human rights law, advocacy etc.

Not having a controlling vote is one thing, not being able to influence proceedings and get the inside track about what her Department may be facing, corporately, is another.

Its a clear conflict of interest, I can't be persuaded otherwise and I think her appointment will be withdrawn or otherwise ended sooner rather than later. If for no other reason than the refusal of complainants to engage with the body so long as she remains on it.

Finished? How would you describe that manifesting itself?

How can it not?

The organisation you are talking about isn't the Defence Forces, its the State. The DF won't defend the actions, the State will. The DF won't pay the restitution, the State will.

The RUC was untenable, so they changed the cap badge, the name, and a few policies. Same people, same HQ, same armoured Land Rovers. Smoke and mirrors.

The Defence Forces will get a shake up, as they were already getting anyway, but no sovereign State can endure without its armed forces, so they will continue. Some different people, some different policies, maybe a different culture, different rules; same Óglaigh na hÉireann, for as long as theres an Irish Republic.

Which is good to know, because if the DF and its community is to move forward and justice is to be served - and be seen to be served - , all the tables will have to be kicked over, all the dark corners illuminated with a harsh light and all the sacred cows slaughtered.

And I think that can only be done by an external criminal investigation.

That misses my point. There is a "rank is right" attitude in the event of a complaint. There is a practice of appeals being invariably upheld when matters are taken further. There is a culture of contempt an disrespect permeating through the whole edifice. There are flaws in training and in promotion systems.

It's another good reason to return to family quarters on base, they become a ready made community that all understand each other's pattern of life and can support each other in circumstances like one partner going on tour or pulling anti-social shifts periodically.

A sad example that the DF isn’t alone with facing these issues:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/18/whistleblower-reports-ongoing-sexual-abuse-women-uk-military