Garda Siochana in Shell to sea sex shocker

Cypher_sounds · 07-04-2011 12:32AM

Oh look there's now 19 guards on boards.ie watch out women.

Iwannahurl · 07-04-2011 12:36AM

hatz7 wrote: »

What! Do you know how groups of men hold conversations?
or do you just like to type posts, so that people read them and go, oh this person is great!

Can't beat honesty, I don't your being honest here.
Have you never uttered a single thing that could be construed by somebody else as offensive?
You have never said anything malicious in your entire life?
Are you a liar?

Not sure I follow your line of 'reasoning'.

My general gist would be 'please don't generalise'.

Birdnuts · 07-04-2011 12:37AM

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

Oh look there's now 19 guards on boards.ie watch out women.

I would say certain PR depts are working overtime since this was exposed!!

mike kelly · 07-04-2011 12:37AM

Cypher_sounds wrote: »

Oh look there's now 19 guards on boards.ie watch out women.

no woman can feel safe until these scum are identified

steddyeddy · 07-04-2011 12:40AM

Odysseus wrote: »

Geniune question. Do you really believe that this would stop someone of either sex reporting a rape?

I cant speak for anyone thats been raped but its certainly not something posistive to hear from those who are reported to about such sensitive matters.

hatz7 · 07-04-2011 12:41AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Not sure I follow your line of 'reasoning'.

My general gist would be 'please don't generalise'.

Your not answering the questions I posted.

That's all I need to know

Keep on truckin Mr. Pontius f**kin Pilate.

Iwannahurl · 07-04-2011 12:46AM

hatz7 wrote: »

Your not answering the questions I posted.

That's all I need to know Keep on truckin Mr. Pontius f**kin Pilate.

Um, nobody's Prefect.

K-9 · 07-04-2011 12:56AM

I've gone from, they said this when the woman was in custody, read article, nope, they were in the back of the car, read article, nope, they said this out of the blue, read transcript and watched video, nope. The women suggested they were not safe in the car and even the female Garda reassured them they were.

I think there was an insinuation that they weren't safe in the car because the Guards might "rape" them. That is why the subject came up. The women insinuated the Guards may rape them and they were taking the piss out of the allegation.

Completely inappropriate and insensitive but it wasn't a completely out of the blue comment.

Odysseus · 07-04-2011 01:10AM

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Mass hysteria? Touch of the hyperbolics there. Maybe even a bit of hysteria, ironically.

Lot of tosh and piffle in this thread and elsewhere on Boards about this being little more than a private joke.

The point is that such comments remain private and (perhaps) unproblematic unless and until they become public, whether through unforeseen events or because someone behaved carelessly.

Then such an apparent lack of professionalism causes upset and controversy because it tends to undermines public confidence in the service.

It's not hard to grasp what is causing the upset. To quote Susan McKay (I think): "these are the people women are supposed to report rape to".

But the thing is it is not causing me any upset, and that seems to be true for lots of other posters here, as well as other professionals I know who deal with the people who experienced sexual violent. So not everybody is "upset" by this event.

Now this point cannot apply to posters here, as I do not know any posters personally. However, I have heard lots of people speak about this incident today but I have not heard one person who has worked with people who have experienced sexual violence express outrage or think that this is indicative of how AGS view rape. It certainly does not affect my belief about AGS's ability to deal with people who have experienced sexual violence to do so in a professional manner.

As I said in a earlier poster I have experienced numerous reasons from patients as to why they would not report a rape to AGS, now I will only deal with a small amount of rape cases over the next year [when compared to the total number of rapes in my area], however, I would be very surprised if this tape was put to me a reason. Now none of us can see the future, but during the next year I will see clients who have been raped, but I would say the amount that won't report because of this incident will be zero.

sillybird · 07-04-2011 01:15AM

.

OutlawPete · 07-04-2011 01:18AM

All AH mods are awesome

Birdnuts · 07-04-2011 01:20AM

K-9 wrote: »

I've gone from, they said this when the woman was in custody, read article, nope, they were in the back of the car, read article, nope, they said this out of the blue, read transcript and watched video, nope. The women suggested they were not safe in the car and even the female Garda reassured them they were.

I think there was an insinuation that they weren't safe in the car because the Guards might "rape" them. That is why the subject came up. The women insinuated the Guards may rape them and they were taking the piss out of the allegation.

Completely inappropriate and insensitive but it wasn't a completely out of the blue comment.

Other incidents have now come to light - which would suggest there is more then a few rotten apples in this barrel:(

Birdnuts · 07-04-2011 01:23AM

Odysseus wrote: »

but I would say the amount that won't report because of this incident will be zero.

Its great that your so sure - I'm sure women in this part of Mayo are delighted with this state of affairs:rolleyes:

Micky Dolenz · 07-04-2011 01:23AM

OutlawPete wrote: »

All AH mods are awesome

You were saying?

K-9 · 07-04-2011 01:29AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Other incidents have now come to light - which would suggest there is more then a few rotten apples in this barrel:(

I'd probably need a objective source, no harm to you.

yosemite_sam · 07-04-2011 01:30AM

Anyone know the names of the Garda involved?

beeftotheheels · 07-04-2011 01:33AM

sillybird wrote: »

I can answer that for you: I choose storm in a tea cup.

...and yet I chose "totally unacceptable" so I guess there is no one right answer here...

To be fair, if there had been an option allowing me to choose "investigate it and if found culpable..." then I would have gone with that. The sad fact is that I found myself doubting the veracity of the reports because they were made by S2S. If the various investigations conclude that the comments were made by members of the Gardaí then they were totally unacceptable and demeaning of one of the most horrific of crimes.

I guess the fact that the transcript suggests that they would take into account the likelihood that the "prospective" victim could have an STD made it sound less like rape (being about subjugation) and more like s€x but the comments are still unjustifiable and I cannot agree to the phrase "storm in a teacup" in relation to such discussion.

Did you report your attack? I didn't, assumed that the chances of a successful prosecution were too low so I starved myself on the basis that no one gets a power trip off subjugating a skeleton, no male finds a skeleton attractive, who ever said anorexia was a bad thing?!!!

I'm recovered now, but the price I paid for being a victim was pretty high and I would really rather other victims could trust that they could go to the police rather than starve themselves. Comments like this from the Gardaí cannot help so, if proven, should be condemned.

04KY · 07-04-2011 01:38AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Are you a Garda??

Birdnuts wrote: »

I doubt you were ever in the area - the vast majority of households in the Rossport/Kilcommon area signed petition against it

Birdnuts wrote: »

I would say certain PR depts are working overtime since this was exposed!!

What's with your paranoia? I express my opinion based on the fact that I lived in the area and worked on the site, you accuse me of never being in the area?! Because posters disagree with you, they are Gardai/Shell PR?

Looking forward to reading about more incidents like this in the paper tomorrow, you can't beat the Daily Mail for in depth analysis. At a guess I imagine it will all be hearsay with no evidence whatsoever. But lets wait and see.

Cheap Thrills! · 07-04-2011 01:42AM

Why is Mickey Dolenz wearing Kieras avatar!?

My face hurts.

Shell sucks ass. I have spoken, Thusly. Indeedypops.

/cheap thrills!

yosemite_sam · 07-04-2011 01:52AM

man.about.town wrote: »

i never said the locals liked the cops, i said they didnt have a problem with shell, your link is pointless and irrelevant. i cant say either way if the cops are like or disliked but the locals i talked to had no problem with gardai or shell but did have a problem with protesters. atleast gardai and workers for shell contribute to the economy by eating, sleeping and drinking while the protesters camped and lived off beans

You are aware the Garda call it the golden mile because of the 14 million euro overtime they have earned from it, who do you think pays that the tooth fairy?

04KY · 07-04-2011 01:56AM

yosemite_sam wrote: »

You are aware the Garda call it the golden mile because of the 14 million euro overtime they have earned from it, who do you think pays that the tooth fairy?

There would be no need for all the overtime if the protestors kept it legal.

Cheap Thrills! · 07-04-2011 01:57AM

yosemite_sam wrote: »

You are aware the Garda call it the golden mile because of the 14 million euro overtime they have earned from it, who do you think pays that the tooth fairy?

Uuumm no NO!

I know this one...mutter mutter....um him...sisname.....

is it the road runner?

Odysseus · 07-04-2011 02:00AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Its great that your so sure - I'm sure women in this part of Mayo are delighted with this state of affairs:rolleyes:

I also stated that none of us can the future, but based upon my experience of the reasons why people male or female never reported their experience of sexual violence. That needs too be acknowledged, because cherry picking to suit your opinion, does not reflect the context of my post you are quoting.

Birdnuts · 07-04-2011 02:05AM

04KY wrote: »

There would be no need for all the overtime if the protestors kept it legal.

Nonsense - the women were released without charge

Birdnuts · 07-04-2011 02:09AM

04KY wrote: »

the Daily Mail for in depth analysis. At a guess I imagine it will all be hearsay with no evidence whatsoever. But lets wait and see.

I'll take it over rubbish from the type of people who cross picket lines on behalf of a company with a record like SHELL:rolleyes:

04KY · 07-04-2011 02:17AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Nonsense - the women were released without charge

This woman wasn't though.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/corrib-protesters-jailed-420741.html

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'll take it over rubbish from the type of people who cross picket lines

The pickets weren't legal so I have no problem with crossing them.

Birdnuts · 07-04-2011 02:43AM

04KY wrote: »

This woman wasn't though.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/corrib-protesters-jailed-420741.html

The pickets weren't legal so I have no problem with crossing them.

Were the miners pickets in Thatchers Britain legal?? - they had to deal with scab labour too!!

Its easy to criminalise the "little" people when the gardai appear unaccountable to no one including the Garda ombudman as I pointed out earlier.

SHELL have been caught red-handed illegally damaging SAC's in the area a number of times - who went to jail for that?? or the the deliberate sinking of a protesting fishermans boat by masked men. - not to mention a whole host of other incidents were numerious protestors from kids to old men ended up in hospital. A number of who now have long term health problems related to their injuries.

There is also deafening silence from the state about the type of people employed by SHELLS IRMS security after what was revealed via the Michael Dwyer affair.

04KY · 07-04-2011 03:04AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

SHELL have been caught red-handed illegally damaging SAC's in the area a number of times - who went to jail for that??

Are you saying somebody should go to jail for mistakenly drilling holes in a Special Area of Conservation? And stopping when informed of the mistake.

Birdnuts wrote: »

or the the deliberate sinking of a protesting fishermans boat by masked men

What evidence have you that this had anything to do with Shell? Speculation in the area is that it had nothing to do with Shell or the Gardai and more than likely came from a source closer to the owner. It's speculation of course because I believe nothing was proven.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1231/1224286546364.html

Birdnuts wrote: »

There is also deafening silence from the state about the type of people employed by SHELLS IRMS security after what was revealed via the Michael Dwyer affair.

What had Michael Dwyer done illegally in Ireland before or during his time with the security company?

Anyway, it is obvious your problem is with Shell and not the actual comments made by the Gardai.

zuroph · 07-04-2011 03:10AM

Birdnuts wrote: »

Were the miners pickets in Thatchers Britain legal?? - they had to deal with scab labour too!!

Its easy to criminalise the "little" people when the gardai appear unaccountable to no one including the Garda ombudman as I pointed out earlier.

SHELL have been caught red-handed illegally damaging SAC's in the area a number of times - who went to jail for that?? or the the deliberate sinking of a protesting fishermans boat by masked men. - not to mention a whole host of other incidents were numerious protestors from kids to old men ended up in hospital. A number of who now have long term health problems related to their injuries.

There is also deafening silence from the state about the type of people employed by SHELLS IRMS security after what was revealed via the Michael Dwyer affair.

I cant find anything in this post to do with the topic of this thread???

randylonghorn · 07-04-2011 03:20AM

prinz wrote: »

Look, you have no clue who I know that has been raped or sexually assaulted ...

That's absolutely true.

But then, I never claimed that I did.

prinz wrote: »

... so you can keep all this righteous anger to yourself.

I have as much right to be angry as anyone else, and to express it, within the rules of Boards and this forum, with or without your permission.

prinz wrote: »

It shows the idiocy of tarring an entire profession with one brush.

Feel free to re-read my previous posts, and quote the part where I tarred an entire profession with one brush.

prinz wrote: »

This is as useless as saying one teacher hits a kid, all teachers are child abusers.

Seeing as you mention teachers, here's a thought:

If three male teachers were inadvertently recorded in a staffroom (with no children actually present) joking about abusing children, what do you think the general reaction would be?

Or if it had been three priests in a similar scenario?

Do you think the reaction from the public would have been much worse than if three mechanics / retail workers / whatever were recorded making such jokes?

I do.

Why?

Because these people are actually day-to-day in a position of power and authority in relation to the vulnerable demographic involved.

And that's the common thread here.

prinz wrote: »

The Gardaí are not robots, they are human. Some are better than others, shocker. Anyone who expects them all to behave in an identical fashion is a bit soft in the head.

I know the Gardaí are human, I don't expect anything else, and I don't expect them to act like robots or in an identical fashion.

I do however expect certain minimum standards from on-duty Gardaí. This incident falls well below those standards.

prinz wrote: »

I have seen and heard much, much worse, and my wife has been subjected to much worse in person.

I am sorry to hear that. It makes it all the more surprising though that you feel able to defend these three so vigorously.

prinz wrote: »

It's called getting a bit of perspective.

I think a bit of perspective is exactly what's called for. I find it difficult to accept, however, that we have become so callous that this kind of behaviour from 3 on-duty Gardaí can be brushed off so easily. To me, that kind of perspective is wholly skewed.

Red Alert wrote: »

I totally agree. This is a complete storm in a teacup, and the sooner the PC brigade get off the bandwagon (or tractor) about this the better. Talk about whipping up hysteria! And an eavesdropper never hears good of themselves :pac:

I love the way people are so fast to dismiss anyone who has a problem with this as "the PC brigade".

Red Alert, do you really think I qualify for the PC brigade?!

(Have a look to the left of my post before you answer!)

Poor Craythur wrote: »

Whilst I don't agree that the Guards did was acceptable, I DO agree that the reporting of the incident has been hyperbolic and sensationalist and a bit embarrassing for the media outlets involved.

Yes, I'd agree with that. But then, I expect nothing better from the Irish media these days.

My name is URL wrote: »

They shouldn't be fired.. that's excessive to say the least and would only serve as a token gesture anyway. They should be made to make a statement of apology and undertake an appropriate training course & the Garda Commissioner should reiterate how such behaviour is not seen as acceptable by the force in order to allay the concerns that some people have about this being a widespread problem.

That sounds about right to me.

The AGS needs to send a very clear message to both the general public and their own members about what is and is not considered acceptable professional behaviour.

I agree though that firing them would be completely OTT, and serve no useful purpose.

smeedyova wrote: »

b) Planning the rape of a woman in their custody,

Oh, come on! I'm totally disgusted at their moronic behaviour and total lack of professionalism, but even I don't believe that for a second!

prinz wrote: »

Not really. Firstly rape doesn't just apply to women as implied.

Not implied.

I framed the question in that way because those being discussed by the three Gardaí in this case were women.

I am all too aware that males can be the victims of rape.

prinz wrote: »

Thirdly the poster uses the conditional assuming that anyone who doesn't agree 100% with him doesn't already have a "sister/gf/mother" who has already been the victim of a rape or sexual assault.

Rubbish.

I posed a hypothetical question which began "if your sister / gf / mother was the victim of rape or sexual assault tomorrow ..."

No relationship whatsoever to the twisted logic (and grammar) above.

prinz wrote: »

Lastly one doesn't have to be a victim of something to have an opinion on it.

Agreed.

Where did I say otherwise?

prinz wrote: »

The post in question seemed to think women can put themselves in the mind of someone who has just been raped btw.. more sexism is it?

To quote yourself "one doesn't have to be a victim of something to have an opinion on it."

How was my post sexist?