Garda Apology

I listened to some of the documentary on YouTube, and I have to say it's very good so far

should the manguard have been disciplined? [i know he was] will he get an apology?

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I feel sorry for this woman and her situation but there is just something not sitting right with me about her media statements. There is a small whiff of narcissism and an enjoyment of the limelight about her. Just the way she burst into tears the moment the camera was on her, seemed very staged.

There’s no doubt the whole episode has been orchestrated and finely honed to engender public support, but I don’t imagine it’s being conducted by Majella Moynihan herself. I actually do think she is a vulnerable person being used as a political pawn by other people who are taking advantage of her circumstances to further their agenda, and she will be discarded and abandoned when she is no longer useful for their purposes. That’s why I suggested earlier that I worry about her that she won’t have the outcome she wants from courting the attention of the public this time around either.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

She also said she tried to commit suicide 5 times. a very specific number of times. Not to put too fine a point on it but hundreds of people in this country manage to kill themselves the first time, never mind five so im sensing some attention seeking from her that way. Like Sinead O Connor- addicted to the worlds reaction to her being a victim, rather than proactively helping herself.

It’s understandable that you would be given to thinking that, and it’s not uncommon to think that way either. But statistically speaking, it isn’t supported by evidence of people who have repeatedly attempted suicide -

APA president and study coauthor Maria Oquendo, MD, said one of the things that has "been very problematic in psychiatric practice is this notion that if the person were serious, they would have killed themselves already. But it's important to consider that in the United States, many people make suicide attempts by overdose, and emergency response systems and hospitals are very good at intervening and reversing the situation."

But the situation in many other countries is quite different. For instance, said Dr Oquendo, in China, many people use pesticides as a method of suicide, and almost all of them always die, not only because the pesticides are extremely lethal but also because the individuals often do not receive any kind of care, Dr Oquendo noted.

She believes physicians need to "readjust their view of the multiple suicide attempter as someone who is just trying to get attention. One of the things I tell my students is, you really shouldn't use the term 'suicide gesture' because it trivializes the behavior of that individual, and if you can help get them through their rough patch, you might just save a life," Dr Oquendo said.

Multiple Suicide Attempts a Marker for Impaired Functionality


Ms. Moynihan has said though that she has received counselling. I would hope for her mental health she would continue to be monitored and supervised.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There’s no doubt the whole episode has been orchestrated and finely honed to engender public support, but I don’t imagine it’s being conducted by Majella Moynihan herself. I actually do think she is a vulnerable person being used as a political pawn by other people who are taking advantage of her circumstances to further their agenda, and she will be discarded and abandoned when she is no longer useful for their purposes. That’s why I suggested earlier that I worry about her that she won’t have the outcome she wants from courting the attention of the public this time around either.





It’s understandable that you would be given to thinking that, and it’s not uncommon to think that way either. But statistically speaking, it isn’t supported by evidence of people who have repeatedly attempted suicide -

APA president and study coauthor Maria Oquendo, MD, said one of the things that has "been very problematic in psychiatric practice is this notion that if the person were serious, they would have killed themselves already. But it's important to consider that in the United States, many people make suicide attempts by overdose, and emergency response systems and hospitals are very good at intervening and reversing the situation."

But the situation in many other countries is quite different. For instance, said Dr Oquendo, in China, many people use pesticides as a method of suicide, and almost all of them always die, not only because the pesticides are extremely lethal but also because the individuals often do not receive any kind of care, Dr Oquendo noted.

She believes physicians need to "readjust their view of the multiple suicide attempter as someone who is just trying to get attention. One of the things I tell my students is, you really shouldn't use the term 'suicide gesture' because it trivializes the behavior of that individual, and if you can help get them through their rough patch, you might just save a life," Dr Oquendo said.

Multiple Suicide Attempts a Marker for Impaired Functionality


Ms. Moynihan has said though that she has received counselling. I would hope for her mental health she would continue to be monitored and supervised.

I accept your point about repeated attempts of suicide being successfully reversed, given the advances of medical care of late and of course, responding fast is critical. But I think it was unwise of her to reveal the number of times she tried, as its inevitably going to be met with "How come you try 5 times when hundreds do it on the first go?", whether you think that view is harsh or not.

Attention seeking for narcissistic reasons is not new- classic case being Sinead o Connor telling anyone who cares (not many by this stage) about the latest developments in her suicidal life, always, ALWAYS within view of a camera or radio interview, the woman is addicted to being a victim and never turns down a chance to spread her life over the airwaves or social media. Now people like that definitely put genuine people who are suffering further back in their efforts to get help.

Edgware wrote: »

Not outside big centres of population. It would be
difficult for a teenager to source but for a police officer in Dublin it would be easy

The pill was often prescribed to stop periods for women/girls who suffered dreadful period pain, bad enough that it required them to have to take days off school/college/work every month so some girls would have got it either genuinely for that or pretending to their doctor it was for that.

I do not believe she is entitled to compensation because no law was broken at the time. None
Was it right what happened to her ? No
But was it illegal-No
We'd have thousands of women looking for compo. The state ain't a bottomless well of revenue to right historical wrongs.

Edgware wrote: »

....... The regulations while not law were regulations in tge same way that the military have regulations thathave to be followed. The fact that in many peoples eyes now they were applied as a catchall would not rule out their use.
I presume those regulations are still in place and while wouldnt be used as they were against Majella could be used in some other situation where Garda management thought necessary to discipline someone[/QUOTE]


As in this scenario? -



https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/garda-sex-video-patrol-car-14232223

Yurt! wrote: »

At the risk of repeating myself, of course, AGS are empowered to discipline. Where in the schedule does it state that AGS are empowered to discipline a member if they fall pregnant? If they have red hair? If they listen German techno-funk in their spare time? All discipline in AGS must be LAWFUL and is subject to legal challenge, then and now.

You're peddling a line that AGS can discipline for any reason they see fit and they are not subject to challenge from other legal statutes.

You’re peddling the line that I said any of those things, when I didn’t. By all means feel free to repeat yourself, and by all means continue to misrepresent the facts of this case in the same way as posters tried to misrepresent the facts in the threads about the cases where Paddy Jackson and George Hook were disciplined by their employers as though they were unlawfully dismissed or treated unfairly by their employers. Those posters didn’t have any more of a point then than any point you don’t have now in this case.

But don’t let that stop you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What do you mean “in many people’s eyes now they were applied as a catchall”? That’s exactly what they are - a set of regulations governing Garda discipline and behaviour as members of AGS. As members of AGS they’re held to higher standards than the general public, and that includes what they may perceive to be their private life.

The simple fact of the matter is that anything they do in what they imagine is their private life which reflects badly on the organisation can lead to disciplinary action against them. It’s no different than the catchall terms included in many employment contracts regarding employees responsibilities and their conduct as employees of an organisation.

Yes of course they are still in place and can be used where Garda management deem it necessary to discipline a member of the force for contravening the regulations which are listed in the schedule here -


S.I. No. 316/1971 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1971.

Updated in 2007 -


S.I. No. 214/2007 - Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007


Your last post about the application of the regulations was so wide of the mark I wasn’t even sure where to begin, so I didn’t. All of that notwithstanding, as part of the regulations there is also an appeals process which Ms. Moynihan could have availed of at the time, but I can only assume for her own reasons she chose not to help herself. She could still pursue legal action against AGS if she wanted, but again she may still remain unsatisfied with the outcome.

The "catchall" as far as I can see was a means of control. If they couldnt get you on a specific offence of discipline they would stick you with the " bringing discredit" charge
This was based on some Garda managers opinion that the Garda behaved in a way that the public thought wasnt " proper" behaviour for a Garda.
This opinion of course would be influenced by the standards of the Garda officer and what he thought should be rather than was common practice.
The Appeals process was not required as the charges were withdrawn as far as I know.
In any case the appeal would have been heard before other senior Garda officers so good luck with that.

Edgware wrote: »

The "catchall" as far as I can see was a means of control. If they couldnt get you on a specific offence of discipline they would stick you with the " bringing discredit" charge
This was based on some Garda managers opinion that the Garda behaved in a way that the public thought wasnt " proper" behaviour for a Garda.
This opinion of course would be influenced by the standards of the Garda officer and what he thought should be rather than was common practice.
The Appeals process was not required as the charges were withdrawn as far as I know.
In any case the appeal would have been heard before other senior Garda officers so good luck with that.

Well of course it’s a means of control, to sanction members of AGS who bring discredit on the force. The charge of bringing discredit on the force is a specific charge of discipline, so it’s not as though they were trying to “get” Garda Moynihan on anything or single her out for discriminatory treatment that they wouldn’t have applied to any other member of the force whose conduct had been deemed to be likely to discredit AGS.

There were other examples at the time of members of AGS who were treated no differently to Garda Moynihan (as she was at the time), so the idea that she was treated unfairly is a non-starter. You’re right that the charges against her were eventually dropped, but there’s no way of knowing how an appeal would have gone anyway given that her superior officers gave her glowing references, and her sworn testimony is contrary to the account she gave afterwards, which would present something of a credibility issue for her in any future hearing of an appeal.

It’s quite well covered in this article -

Transcript of the RTÉ Majella Moynihan documentary

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They were mostly concerned with what their families, friends and neighbours would think of them.

And WHY would their families, friends or neighbours think badly of them if they were having sex or getting pregnant? Because the church was telling them what to think, and these people were stupid enough to listen to 'celibate' men in dresses pontificating on sex. Some rejected these notions, but most did not.

Even in her own story she gave an account of a nun in her time in an industrial school who was one of the kindest people she’d known.

She also said that nun left and after that things went very badly for her for the rest of her time in that place, so not all the nuns treated her well.

She wasn’t treated any more unfairly than anyone else in her circumstances.

Unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.

As if every other garda who was not either a virgin or an exclusively faithful spouse was disciplined.

Her "crime" was to produce proof of her "indiscretion" - by having a baby.

But even then, she was treated much more unfairly than other unmarried female gardai at the time who were allowed keep both their baby and their job.

She was continually pressurised by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers. Then she was charged, interrogated in detail about her private life, and almost sacked.

Not to metion that the male party to this "crime" was merely fined, and not threatened with the sack.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She chose to reject the father of the child, yet still wants to maintain she was a victim because he didn’t give her the support she wanted from him.

He offered to marry her, but when she refused (she says she had never intended to marry him, and remember, no divorce then - and it says a lot about him that he asked her father before he mentioned the idea of marriage to her) he didn't offer any financial or emotional support whatsoever and basically told her to f*** off, not giving a damn about his own child never mind her.

I suppose you're going to blame her for his being such an irresponsible callous cnut, too...

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

And WHY would their families, friends or neighbours think badly of them if they were having sex or getting pregnant? Because the church was telling them what to think, and these people were stupid enough to listen to 'celibate' men in dresses pontificating on sex. Some rejected these notions, but most did not.

Feckall to do with what “celibate” men were telling anyone at the time HD, sure 10 years earlier we’d already had a referendum to remove the recognition of the special position of the Catholic Church - passed by an overwhelming majority of 84% of the electorate.

No, it had everything to do with people having notions about class, and their position in their communities and in society. We see the same today in spite of the lack of influence of the Church. Religious morality was a convenient excuse at the time for people to disguise their disdain for people they regarded themselves as “better than”. Nowadays without the influence of the Church, people still have notions about themselves, only nowadays people don’t feel any need to disguise their notions - they straight out make claims that because they’re a taxpayer they’re better than someone else. See the recent example that was made of Margaret Cash in the media and on here, and then come back and you can feel free to lecture me as though Irish society was somehow different 35 years ago from what it is today - people still generally condemn people they regard as being irresponsible.

Unbelieveable. Absolutely unbelieveable.

As if every other garda who was not either a virgin or an exclusively faithful spouse was disciplined.

Her "crime" was to produce proof of her "indiscretion" - by having a baby.

But even then, she was treated much more unfairly than other unmarried female gardai at the time who were allowed keep both their baby and their job.

She was continually pressurised by senior officers to sign the final adoption papers. Then she was charged, interrogated in detail about her private life, and almost sacked.

Not to metion that the male party to this "crime" was merely fined, and not threatened with the sack.

What’s more unbelievable are your hyperbolic efforts to suggest anyone was accusing Garda Moynihan of a criminal act, when nobody had done any such thing. Of course she felt she was being treated like a criminal because she was being disciplined by her employer for a breach of the regulations which she was aware of when she joined AGS.

She wasn’t treated any differently than other member of the force who was in similar circumstances. She wanted to be treated differently. That’s exactly where the problem was - she wasn’t going to be treated differently. The other Garda who was involved was treated differently because his were a completely different and separate set of circumstances. He wasn’t treated any differently than any other Garda who would find themselves in similar circumstances to his either. We don’t know anything more about how he was treated because there’s nothing in the media about him only that he was fined.

He offered to marry her, but when she refused (she says she had never intended to marry him, and remember, no divorce then - and it says a lot about him that he asked her father before he mentioned the idea of marriage to her) he didn't offer any financial or emotional support whatsoever and basically told her to f*** off, not giving a damn about his own child never mind her.

I suppose you're going to blame her for his being such an irresponsible callous cnut, too...

It doesn’t say anything about him that he asked her father before he mentioned anything about marriage to her, other than what you want to say about it? Maybe you’re not aware of the tradition at the time which wasn’t based upon Church teachings either but has a longer history than that of wanting to be seen to “do the right thing by her and the child”. Shotgun weddings, still goes on today.

That aside, I can understand from his point of view why he wouldn’t stick around after she turned him down. What was he supposed to stick around for? I can’t blame him for not giving a shìte what she thought of him at that stage when she at least appears to have made herself quite clear. We don’t know whether or not he would have supported his child because she decided to give the child up for adoption. He could still have wanted to support his child without having anything to do with her. I don’t know though how you can imagine he wouldn’t have supported his child when he doesn’t appear to have been given any choice in the matter.

I’m not going to blame her at all for him being an irresponsible callous cnut because I don’t know that he actually was an irresponsible callous cnut. Certainly one thing we do know is that both of them chose to be irresponsible on the night the child was conceived when in spite of the fact that they were using contraception, on the occasion in question when the child was conceived - they both chose not to use contraception. Again, fcukall to do with Catholic morality or the unavailability of contraception, as they had been using contraception up to that point.

So I would suggest that both of them were irresponsible in a number of ways, and jeopardising both their careers, or “Catholic Ireland” nonsense was likely the last thing on their minds when they were getting their rocks off. They didn’t care who would have sympathy for them then, but suddenly people are supposed to have sympathy for them for having to deal with the consequences of their actions? I’m finding it hard to muster sympathy for either of them tbh, and when one of them wants personal apologies for being disciplined by their employers as a result of their actions, I’m given to thinking they have to be taking the piss.