Garda Siochana in Shell to sea sex shocker

Heard some from the rape crisis centre on the last word the other day...

Really they should realise that the clue is in their name. Was there a rape? Is anyone in crisis? I dont think so. I think their time could be better spent. As i do with the cops investigation. Severe formal warning to both cops that big brother is watching all the time etc etc but move the frick on after that.

Odysseus wrote: »

The worst part of that piece you copied is the second last bullet point of showing "solidarity with victims of sexual violence". I actually find that insulting to people who have experienced such a trauma. As this campaign is so self-serving there is little solidarity being shown by S2S from what I can see.

As it is so clearly jumping on the band wagon of moral outrage that rape brings out in people, I find it very offensive to those who have experienced sexual violence.

I know next to nothing about S2S activities so as a group I have no axe to grind with them, but attempting to use the traumatic experience of sexual violence to advance their own agenda is despicable.

I respectfully disagree with this particular point, though I agree with most of what you've been saying.

The event linked to has been arranged by the Irish Feminist Network, and they seem to have gone to some lengths to not tie up the purpose of their protest with the ideology of Shell to Sea. I have no doubt that some of those in attendance will have different plans, but the agenda of that protest isn't particularly "offensive."

I get the point of black humour, and obviously I sometimes laugh at some "so bad it's hilarious" jokes (in moderation, mind, since mostly it's just douchebags who aren't at all funny; "hur hur, dead babies and rape and I hate blacks, I'm so edgy!")

But I don't think it's right for people (guys, usually) to laugh and joke about rape the way they do. I've abstained from this particular sort of humour for a very long time because of a) the risk of upsetting someone in my company who has suffered a traumatic experience and b) the risk of laughing along with some scumbag who has inflicted this upon someone else and also likes to make "harmless jokes" about it.

I don't believe this should be front page news, or (as Seamus argues) there can be any basis for punishing the Gardaí severely for an in-jest comment in a private conversation that was secretly recorded. But I also think it was a ****ty, asshole sort of joke to make, and that there's nothing inherently unreasonable in objecting to, and protesting against our police force making jokes about that when they are charged with actually dealing with those crises in a sensitive manner.

Actually... I just saw the addendum about the IFN not organising this protest, and I now realise they may have just posted the parts of the agenda that match up with theirs, and it's probably a full on Shell to Sea, "450,000,000 hundredty billion majillion in free oil given away, rabble rabble, **** the gardaí" protest...

meh... most of my points stand.

veryangryman wrote: »

Heard some from the rape crisis centre on the last word the other day...

Really they should realise that the clue is in their name. Was there a rape? Is anyone in crisis? I dont think so. I think their time could be better spent. As i do with the cops investigation. Severe formal warning to both cops that big brother is watching all the time etc etc but move the frick on after that.

I heard her on that too, she also appeared on the Last Word giving out about the sexy Hunky Dorey ads. She said the ads could lead to an increase in sexual assaults. How she's allowed on air on their behalf is beyond me.

Joking about rape is not rape - it's just crap humour.

seamus wrote: »

Thankfully they can't be punished because they haven't done anything wrong. This was a private conversation between individuals. An employer cannot punish an employee for remarks made privately

they were not in private, they should not have a private conversation. They were in uniforms, on duty. They were carrying a camcorder to the garda station. - They were working. Btw We the people are their employers..... they get salaries from our pockets. I don't want to have employees who are having private conversations about raping women while in work.

Marcin_diy wrote: »

they were not in private, they should not have a private conversation..

Yes they were, and why not? Stranger and stranger it gets.

Marcin_diy wrote: »

They were working...

Am I not allowed talk about football now at work? Or current affairs? Or is this 'no talking' rule only applicable to AGS?

Marcin_diy wrote: »

Btw We the people are their employers..... they get salaries from our pockets. I don't want to have employees who are having private conversations about raping women while in work.

So it was a private conversation? I thought it wasn't?

Birdnuts wrote: »

This thread is like being stuck in a bar with a load of drunken off-duty cops:rolleyes:

You mean lots of whipped cream and dirty dancing?

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

gards shouldnt be saying they are going to rape people when their on the job end of whether it was a joke or not.

Ah yes, we're back to that.

Marcin_diy wrote: »

they were not in private, they should not have a private conversation. They were in uniforms, on duty. They were carrying a camcorder to the garda station. - They were working. Btw We the people are their employers..... they get salaries from our pockets. I don't want to have employees who are having private conversations about raping women while in work.

Stop!! - common sense is not allowed in this thread:cool:

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

lads dont mind prinz he is more than likely a gard sitting on his arse doing hardwork behind a computer.

either that or he knows someone who is a cop, just ignore him he will go away eventually.

Sadly he's not the only one - though its probably better then having them sitting behind a hedge on the safest roads in Ireland shooting fish in a barrell, which appears to be their other favourite past time:(

mufcboy1999 wrote: »

gards shouldnt be saying they are going to rape people when their on the job end of whether it was a joke or not.

No they shouldn't and they weren't. It was joke, which they are entitled to make.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I'm trying to find something that deals with this, the inadvertent self recording of a conversation but i can't. If you have anything that implies there was a legal obligation to delete a record people unknowingly made of themselves i'd love to give it a read?

I'll have a proper look. There's a grey area here in that the Gardai did not record themselves even inadvertently because the protestors were the ones who started the recording.

In any case, the protestors came into possession of a private conversation known to be recorded without the knowledge (and therefore consent) of the people involved. While their obligations around notification are iffy (though I would argue they had a moral obligation to notify or delete), the data protection act prevents them from legally publishing or releasing that data to a 3rd party without the recorded people's consent and they would be legally obliged to delete the data because it was not recorded with the Gardai's consent and they had no legitimate reason to be in possession of it.

Marcin_diy wrote: »

they were not in private, they should not have a private conversation. They were in uniforms, on duty. They were carrying a camcorder to the garda station. - They were working.

In private. It's possible to be working and have a private conversation or be in a private situation. Being in work or wearing a uniform doesn't suddenly make your conversations public.

I don't want to have employees who are having private conversations about raping women while in work.

I don't care if an employee of mine makes a contextual, satirical joke about rape (in fact, mocking a farcical insinuation of rape) in private provided that it doesn't affect how they do their job or result in offence to any of the people it's told to.

common sense brigade wrote: »

Just want to say again aside from the fact what they said is horrible and wrong. You cannot take away from freedom of speech. If you do you are entering a dictatorship.

There is a dictatorship alive and well in Erris

lastlaugh wrote: »

I don't think some people will ever accept or recognise this very simple point.

How about the simple point that there is an obvious difference between arresting police officers and a buch of civilian jerks??

Which type of people would women normally report rape too?? - take your time now!!

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What comments were those? Links?

There are already links to the story in this thread - find them yourself!!

Birdnuts wrote: »

There are already links to the story in this thread - find them yourself!!

No. I am asking you to link to them, just as you would ask me to do if I had mentioned them first.

If you are going to use something some-one said to make an argument then you must quote or give links to it so we judge it for ourselves.