Garda Apology

BattleCorp · 17-06-2019 11:20am

Mrsmum wrote: »

So her choices were

1) get married and keep child, would she still be able to keep career ?
2) keep child and leave job
3) keep job

Aren't they the same choices endless women made, why is this so different ?

I think the whole point is that she shouldn't have been forced to make such a choice.

Ireland was a really a backwards place. I'm surprised that this happened in the 80's. I thought we were a little more enlightened by then.

branie2 · 17-06-2019 11:21am

About time as well

Muahahaha · 17-06-2019 11:22am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I haven't seen nor heard it as I neither watch or listen to RTE Radio or TV.

So you havent even listened to the documentary yet from the alter of your own ignorance you make judgements on others, well done on that

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Before anyone one says "she didnt want to marry him". If he was good enough to be let into the sack he was good enough for the marriage bed. Get over it.

Now you're sounding like a 1950s priest

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 11:24am

BattleCorp wrote: »

I think the whole point is that she shouldn't have been forced to make such a choice.

Ireland was a really a backwards place. I'm surprised that this happened in the 80's. I thought we were a little more enlightened by then.

She was in state service, I would have booted her out for not being fit for training and bringing the force into disrepute. She knew the regulations.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 11:27am

Muahahaha wrote: »

So you havent even listened to the documentary yet from the alter of your own ignorance you make judgements on others, well done on that

Now you're sounding like a 1950s priest

I have the facts from here. She broke regulations and she is choosing to complain about them now.

So you want me to be a 1950's style Priest? If that is your fantasy its not mine but carry on.

riemann · 17-06-2019 11:27am

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

There isn’t one person alive or dead in this country that came through under nuns or Christian brothers, that wasn’t hit or beaten regularly.
Her story isn’t about that. It’s far more serious.

Well I did for one. You'll find the majority of us taught in religious institutions did quite well. Unfortunately there was a number of unpleasant individuals who did untold harm, thankfully this was not the case for the majority.

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 11:27am

Mrsmum wrote: »

So her choices were

1) get married and keep child, would she still be able to keep career ?
2) keep child and leave job
3) keep job

Aren't they the same choices endless women made, why is this so different ?

How about not being charged with pre-marital sex and having a child out of wedlock? How about not being questioned about her private and past sex life at a hearing made up of men? How about not questioning her contraceptive methods now? How about not blaming her for being punished for having a normal, adult life and getting pregnant in her 20s?

morebarn2 · 17-06-2019 11:27am

Mrsmum wrote: »

elperello wrote: »

There is a lot of conflation of the public and private lives of state employees in this thread.
All citizens have a right to their private morality apart from their duty to the state.
They don't mix well now and didn't in the past either.

You are so right that they don't mix but it's just a fact they were totally entwined back then. A cousin of mine is a teacher in a small country school and she has two kids with a boyfriend. No one bats an eyelid (or if they do they keep it to themselves.) In the 80s she would have been out on her ear. Judging those times from where we are now would be like dropping a modern person back them. You can't mix the two imo.

While I agree that those were different times I can’t agree that by1984 things hadn’t changed immensely. Lots of girls were keeping their children and raising them singlehanded or with a partner , without marrying.

I lived with my boyfriend from the mid 70s, quite openly and we had a baby in 1979. I worked in a very public-facing role in a local authority and my circumstances were never an issue. After the birth I returned to work 8 weeks later and life continued as normal.
People were very accepting and it was certainly possible to have a career and a child, without being married!

We had as free a life as we wanted, the Church had no say or interference in it. Happiest years of our life really!

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 11:30am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Keeping yourself pure for the wedding night, are you?

Getting married in September thank you. Mrs Skooter to be would love a new SMEG fridge if you are buying. We dont have any secrets or wild oats. It makes life so much easier.

There will be romance, passion fun aboard our cruise ship in the Caribbean, if we get blessed with mini skooters then everything will be perfect.

I'd commiserate with Mrs Skooter to be if I thought for one second she was actually real.

Stop moaning ffs · 17-06-2019 11:31am

Something that hasn’t been mentioned but women in the civil service had to resign when they got married.
That only changed in the 90s right?
So the institutional hardcore bias against women wasn’t just in the Gardaí. It was state policy.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 11:34am

Sardonicat wrote: »

How about not being charged with pre-marital sex and having a child out of wedlock? How about not being questioned about her private and past sex life at a hearing made up of men? How about not questioning her contraceptive methods now? How about not blaming her for being punished for having a normal, adult life and getting pregnant in her 20s?

Those are garda regulations.
When you are training with the Gardai or the defence forces you are under constant scrutiny. If anything she left all her fellow students down by not being able to uphold discipline. If the Gardai cant hold it together morally how are they supposed to uphold the rule of law.
My cousin was dismissed as a teacher in the 1990's from a school for having a child out of wedlock. She got another post closer to home in a state school, she was grand.

BattleCorp · 17-06-2019 11:35am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

She was in state service, I would have booted her out for not being fit for training and bringing the force into disrepute. She knew the regulations.

You are probably right. She should have been flogged too I suppose. That'd learn her.

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 11:36am

morebarn2 wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

elperello wrote: »

There is a lot of conflation of the public and private lives of state employees in this thread.
All citizens have a right to their private morality apart from their duty to the state.
They don't mix well now and didn't in the past either.

You are so right that they don't mix but it's just a fact they were totally entwined back then. A cousin of mine is a teacher in a small country school and she has two kids with a boyfriend. No one bats an eyelid (or if they do they keep it to themselves.) In the 80s she would have been out on her ear. Judging those times from where we are now would be like dropping a modern person back them. You can't mix the two imo.

While I agree that those were different times I can’t agree that by1984 things hadn’t changed immensely. Lots of girls were keeping their children and raising them singlehanded or with a partner , without marrying.

I lived with my boyfriend from the mid 70s, quite openly and we had a baby in 1979. I worked in a very public-facing role in a local authority and my circumstances were never an issue. After the birth I returned to work 8 weeks later and life continued as normal.
People were very accepting and it was certainly possible to have a career and a child, without being married!

We had as free a life as we wanted, the Church had no say or interference in it. Happiest years of our life really!

You are right, of course. Things were changing and people were accepting. Yet, in the midst of this social change Ms. Moynihan was charged with bringing the force into disrepute for having a private life and getting pregnant as a result. She was continously brow beaten and bullied and pressured into giving up her child. The guards didn't want a single mother on the force. The father didn't want to partner her in brining up their child, it was marriage or nothing.

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 11:37am

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Something that hasn’t been mentioned but women in the civil service had to resign when they got married.
That only changed in the 90s right?
So the institutional hardcore bias against women wasn’t just in the Gardaí. It was state policy.

No, that changed in the 70s

17-06-2019 11:38am

i mean

if one were to acknowledge that the mores of the times were wrong

but that the times were governed by those mores

can everybody stop pretending that the other side has defended those times

its is entirely correct to say that the rules existed. it was a very different ireland, but one which was nonetheless not an illegitimate state or anything, the citizens had their say as they do now.

you cannot retrospectively legislate every case and, as someone else stated, constant focus on public apologies and retribution over what was past policy is not really a great use of government time, media focus or taxpayer assets.

BattleCorp · 17-06-2019 11:38am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I have the facts from here. She broke regulations and she is choosing to complain about them now.

So you want me to be a 1950's style Priest? If that is your fantasy its not mine but carry on.

Nah, you aren't a 1950's style priest.

You are just a Guard defending the behaviour of the Guards.

morebarn2 · 17-06-2019 11:41am

Sardonicat wrote: »

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Something that hasn’t been mentioned but women in the civil service had to resign when they got married.
That only changed in the 90s right?
So the institutional hardcore bias against women wasn’t just in the Gardaí. It was state policy.

No, that changed in the 70s

Yes the Marriage bar was removed around 1973 I think.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 11:41am

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'd commiserate with Mrs Skooter to be if I thought for one second she was actually real.

Dont worry I will send you a youtube link in September of our marriage. We are honeymooning in Vegas in January. Neither of us have been married before and neither of us have had kids. I have seen all this crap later on with illegitimate children and inheritance. All jockeying for position and trying to prove legitimacy. All the lesser cousins with their paternity tests and second marriages. Things were way simpler in the 1980's

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 11:44am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Nah, you aren't a 1950's style priest.

You are just a Guard defending the behaviour of the Guards.

Not a guard and never was. Too smart for that.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 11:46am

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are probably right. She should have been flogged too I suppose. That'd learn her.

No I would just have her dismissed from training as she is unfit to complete it on medical grounds.

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 11:47am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'd commiserate with Mrs Skooter to be if I thought for one second she was actually real.

Dont worry I will send you a youtube link in September of our marriage. We are honeymooning in Vegas in January. Neither of us have been married before and neither of us have had kids. I have seen all this crap later on with illegitimate children and inheritance. All jockeying for position and trying to prove legitimacy. All the lesser cousins with their paternity tests and second marriages. Things were way simpler in the 1980's

It's funny how you post more prolifically during the school holidays. Strange for a man who remembers the 80s so well and must be in his late 40s or early 50s. And still a Virgin too (now I have no problem believing that!)

Mortelaro · 17-06-2019 11:49am

Whilst I've every sympathy for her and acommon predicament of the time

Is she looking for another tribunal and compensation? Is that the ultimate aim here?
Fcuk that!

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 11:51am

Mortelaro wrote: »

Whilst I've every sympathy for her and common predicament of the time

Is she looking for another tribunal and compensation? Is that the ultimate aim here?
Fcuk that!

She hasn't said that. I would be curious how many other women this happened to, though.

Grayson · 17-06-2019 11:52am

judeboy101 wrote: »

She consciously chose to sign away her kid to keep her job, think about that for a second. The other guard knew this and didn't step up to the plate. Methinks guilt can sometimes be used to lash out rather than accept ones own deeds.

I've recently connected with a brother I hadn't met until a few years ago. My mum put him up for adoption. I don't think any of us can judge the decisions these women had to make back then. It was a completely backwards place.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 11:56am

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's funny how you post more prolifically during the school holidays. Strange for a man who remembers the 80s so well and must be in his late 40s or early 50s. And still a Virgin too (now I have no problem believing that!)

I never said I was a virgin, just I have no wild oats. Maybe I have good memory and you are far out on the age too. Late 40's? Mrs Skooter to be is going to love this. If I remember the 1980's so well its because I was reading the paper at an early age and my father had me watching the 6 'o Clock News. As I always say I didnt know where Belfast, Baghdad and Beirut were but I knew what was going on there.

I must have touched a nerve do you have a few little illegitimates you cant account for the father? Did you give out the goodies before you got a ring?

BattleCorp · 17-06-2019 11:59am

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No I would just have her dismissed from training as she is unfit to complete it on medical grounds.

Out of curiosity, supposing the exact same thing happened nowadays. What would you do in that situation?

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:00pm

Mortelaro wrote: »

Whilst I've every sympathy for her and acommon predicament of the time

Is she looking for another tribunal and compensation? Is that the ultimate aim here?
Fcuk that!

Fupp it!!! Lets have a tribunal then and call up the barristers and solicitors. Put them all on the state pension. Lets give them all 800k and a blue medical card and what not. There is a magic crock of gold for all this crap.

What about all the good Guards who served the state and their communities? Who kept the law ans regulations. I see nothing wrong done here by the state.

Mortelaro · 17-06-2019 12:01pm

Sardonicat wrote: »

She hasn't said that. I would be curious how many other women this happened to, though.

It's a well trod path at this stage though with a recognizable playbook
Cue a few outraged Dáil deputies in our minority government Dáil calling on one being the next step

Batton down the hatches/purse strings

I'd be telling them to go be..
The moneys better spent on housing

Sardonicat · 17-06-2019 12:02pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

It's funny how you post more prolifically during the school holidays. Strange for a man who remembers the 80s so well and must be in his late 40s or early 50s. And still a Virgin too (now I have no problem believing that!)

I never said I was a virgin, just I have no wild oats. Maybe I have good memory and you are far out on the age too. Late 40's? Mrs Skooter to be is going to love this. If I remember the 1980's so well its because I was reading the paper at an early age and my father had me watching the 6 'o Clock News. As I always say I didnt know where Belfast, Baghdad and Beirut were but I knew what was going on there.

I must have touched a nerve do you have a few little illegitimates you cant account for the father?

Wow! You need to get out of your mother's basement more. I'm sure she's very, very proud of you.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:04pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Out of curiosity, supposing the exact same thing happened nowadays. What would you do in that situation?

I am not a guard and I am not that familiar with garda regulations but you dont have to try to hard to get dismissed from training. Remember that guy about a year ago who was dismissed for being in an internet porno? I never heard the end of that but I imagine he had to go for bringing the force into disrepute. I would say there were other reason for dismissing him, this just seemed to be the fastest way. Does he deserve his own tribunal? Will judges have to act on the finding?

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:06pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

If I remember the 1980's so well its because I was reading the paper at an early age and my father had me watching the 6 'o Clock News.

Aye he had you reading the Irish Catholic and turned the sound down after the Angelus so he could rant about single mothers.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:06pm

Sardonicat wrote: »

Wow! You need to get out of your mother's basement more. I'm sure she's very, very proud of you.

Actually I moved out when I was 19 and went to college and moved away from home. Try again. So how many little delinquents am I funding belonging to you?

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:07pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Aye he had you reading the Irish Catholic and turned the sound down after the Angelus so he could rant about single mothers.

Nope the Irish Press.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:08pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am not a guard and I am not that familiar with garda regulations but you dont have to try to hard to get dismissed from training. Remember that guy about a year ago who was dismissed for being in an internet porno? I never heard the end of that but I imagine he had to go for bringing the force into disrepute. I would say there were other reason for dismissing him, this just seemed to be the fastest way. Does he deserve his own tribunal? Will judges have to act on the finding?

Astonishing, that's the first time I've seen someone draw an ethical correlation between being in a porno and having a child.

Where will you take us next?

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:09pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Nope the Irish Press.

That doesn't surprise given the content of your posts.

BattleCorp · 17-06-2019 12:09pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am not a guard and I am not that familiar with garda regulations but you dont have to try to hard to get dismissed from training. Remember that guy about a year ago who was dismissed for being in an internet porno? I never heard the end of that but I imagine he had to go for bringing the force into disrepute. I would say there were other reason for dismissing him, this just seemed to be the fastest way. Does he deserve his own tribunal? Will judges have to act on the finding?

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with employment law, particularly laws in relation to pregnant employees?

You can't dismiss/demote/punish in any way an employee for getting pregnant.

There aren't such protections for persons who appear in pornos (unless they are pregnant).

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:12pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Astonishing, that's the first time I've seen someone draw an ethical correlation between being in a porno and having a child.

Where will you take us next?

It is all the same in regulations, "Bringing the force into disrepute". Its not that she was having the child. She was having the child out of wedlock, while in the force and bringing the force into disrepute.

Course she could have had it all given all the accommodations at the time. She just chose her own path.

Kimbot · 17-06-2019 12:13pm

Sardonicat wrote: »

Wow! You need to get out of your mother's basement more. I'm sure she's very, very proud of you.

MOD Sardonicat, dont post in this thread again!!!!

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:15pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm guessing you aren't familiar with employment law, particularly laws in relation to pregnant employees?

You can't dismiss/demote/punish in any way an employee for getting pregnant.

There aren't such protections for persons who appear in pornos (unless they are pregnant).

She wasnt an employee, she was a trainee Garda. They are not subject to the same regulations. Big Difference. She was given opportunities and she didnt make smart decisions. I have made bad decisions too in my past but you dont hear me complain about them or want a state compensation.

Grayson · 17-06-2019 12:17pm

Deleted User wrote: »

i mean

if one were to acknowledge that the mores of the times were wrong

but that the times were governed by those mores

can everybody stop pretending that the other side has defended those times

its is entirely correct to say that the rules existed. it was a very different ireland, but one which was nonetheless not an illegitimate state or anything, the citizens had their say as they do now.

you cannot retrospectively legislate every case and, as someone else stated, constant focus on public apologies and retribution over what was past policy is not really a great use of government time, media focus or taxpayer assets.

Maybe not, but when the state or a group treated people atrociously then there needs to be at the very least an apology.

We've seen this happen with the magdalene laundries. We've seen something similar when women were paid less by the civil service and forced to quit when they were married. The government apologised and in cases offered redress.

the question to ask is whether the government acted badly. If they did, should they say sorry? And was there a financial lose to the person or at least physical/emotional harm that may need financial redress.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:18pm

In there are any millennials reading who are wondering why Ireland was a pseudo-theocratic basket case ran by repressed bigots, and are curious to know what may have came out of their mouths - please see skooterblue2's posts.

Don't worry though, he has the right to speak his mind as he's paid loadzaloadza taxes (apparently).

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:18pm

Yurt! wrote: »

That doesn't surprise given the content of your posts.

Well there wasnt a socialist paper at the time and we didnt have the internet. could you have suggested another publication at the time?

BarryD2 · 17-06-2019 12:19pm

I heard the documentary, tough treatment of that woman. Being of a similar age though I can appreciate the times that were in it and her position as a young woman and recruit facing all these Garda regulations and culture. I quite believe that it was very daunting. We are only hearing one side of the story, so who knows there may be different angles. I think what might have also gone against her in the patriarchal leadership of the Gardai at the time, was that her boyfriend offered to regularise the situation by marrying her and she declined for her own reasons. That might have been seen as a spurning of a logical solution by the Gardai of the day?

Grayson · 17-06-2019 12:20pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

I heard the documentary, tough treatment of that woman. Being of a similar age though I can appreciate the times that were in it and her position as a young woman and recruit facing all these Garda regulations and culture. I quite believe that it was very daunting. We are only hearing one side of the story, so who knows there may be different angles. I think what might have also gone against her in the patriarchal leadership of the Gardai at the time, was that her boyfriend offered to regularise the situation by marrying her and she declined for her own reasons. That might have been seen as a spurning of a logical solution by the Gardai of the day?

Marrying someone to keep your job isn't really a solution.

Yurt2 · 17-06-2019 12:24pm

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well there wasnt a socialist paper at the time and we didnt have the internet. could you have suggested another publication at the time?

Fianna Fail Pravda rag - with more than a few rosary bead rattlers on staff.

Are you, like Bertie, claiming the mantle of socialism? All the while defending the harassment of a young pregnant woman?

I hate to break it to you pork-chop, but it was actually the Beano you were reading all those years ago.

17-06-2019 12:24pm

Grayson wrote: »

Maybe not, but when the state or a group treated people atrociously then there needs to be at the very least an apology.

We've seen this happen with the magdalene laundries. We've seen something similar when women were paid less by the civil service and forced to quit when they were married. The government apologised and in cases offered redress.

the question to ask is whether the government acted badly. If they did, should they say sorry? And was there a financial lose to the person or at least physical/emotional harm that may need financial redress.

i think there's something to that, surely. a measured (which almost needs to become a dry, impersonal procedure in order to work) approach of a quasi-legal bent.

but its a fine process to step through.

"was it wrong?" is .... even if your answer is yes, it's almost a useless lens through which to view it.

"was it legal"
"was it open"
"had the actors the right to act as they did at the time"

i do think these considerations (and similar) have to be met before you start to look at harm caused and what response is the right one officially.

i understand completely that this approach doesnt give the sympathisers the satisfaction theyre seeking.

but acting on behalf of an official body is not a popularity contest and is not a test of personal morals.

im not sure that this instance is a practical opportunity to do anything more than agree that this was a ****ty approach and be glad that we changed it.

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:25pm

BarryD2 wrote: »

I heard the documentary, tough treatment of that woman. Being of a similar age though I can appreciate the times that were in it and her position as a young woman and recruit facing all these Garda regulations and culture. I quite believe that it was very daunting.

Everyone finds Garda/Defence force training tough and anyone who says differently has never completed it. Its to prepare you for what is ahead. She was not a "young woman" she was trainee Garda. She had a working knowledge of regulations and the law.

eagle eye · 17-06-2019 12:27pm

I've been wronged many times in my life. Things have changed though and we move on. You gotta look forward and not back. The only reason the past is important is to learn from mistakes.
I can't see what benefit an apology now has, it's hollow at best because none of the people involved are giving it.

Jupiter Mulligan · 17-06-2019 12:28pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Such a curt aphorism might be appropriate if the culture of state institutions has radically changed. Evidence over the past couple of years suggests otherwise.

What it actually means is somewhat at odds to your interpretation.

Yurt! wrote: »

Your own posts would also lead people to believe that there are many in the country that don't give a hoot how people get treated, as long as evreything looks tickety-boo on the surface and pensions get paid.

Indeed it might. Quite perspicacious of you to spot that. Well done!

skooterblue2 · 17-06-2019 12:29pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Fianna Fail Pravda rag - with more than a few rosary bead rattlers on staff.

Are you, like Bertie, claiming the mantle of socialism? All the while defending the harassment of a young pregnant woman?

I hate to break it to you pork-chop, but it was actually the Beano you were reading all those years ago.

What other choice did the household have? The Independent? The point is I was reading current affairs at an early age. I was well informed of what was going on and who was moving where.

Garda Apology

Comments