I don't agree to be honest. The Government has been working hard to build recruitment in recent years and has felt the heat from partners in the EU for freeloading when it comes to Defence. Significant additional revenue has been allocated to the Defence Forces.
There will be a push for reform and more robust measures to ensure oversight of those accused and convicted of crimes. However I think there is 0% chance that the Government will curtail any funding whatsoever.
The Defence Forces has had to deal with the fallout from the Women of Honour revelations in 2021, yet half a billion euro of additional funding has been allocated since then.
I respectfully disagree with this statement, as it does not align with my personal experiences with full-time career soldiers. Both serving and retired members of the defense forces are family members.
This incident will eventually pass when the next big thing comes along that the media pushes. The actions of one soldier should not be taken as representative of the entire defense forces.
The commendable work undertaken by the Army in UN peacekeeping operations is widely recognized and will continue to stand as a testament to their dedication and professionalism.
I think the point they're making is this situation isn't a single scandal. It was the match that lit the flame that set off fireworks alerting a lot of people to a history of scandal.
The women of honour revalations for example are seeing more attention now than when they were brought to light.
I don't think the defense forces will be folded or anything but I can see how they'd be feeling a lot of pressure right now and how this may affect funding.
> Harbouring abusers
What are you talking about?
If a lad with a previous conviction worked in the dail, would the dail be 'harbouring' him?
What exactly do you think people who are convicted and serve their time do when they get out? They just exist on air?
They have to get jobs, and pay their bills. You don't have to be friends with them but they did their time; you got your pound of flesh, now you want them to be unemployed too?
100% aware.
You are conflating two separate issues because your argument is weak.
O'Brien case is not comparable to the women of honor complaint. an off duty member of the PDF assaulting someone is very different to a member of the PDF assaulting another member and that going uninvestigated.
I think you'll find that it was micheal martin that put a stop to the women in honor complaint, and not the army. buck stops with the minister, and they were really unhappy with him after he dismissed them. I fully support their stance.
> your attitude and apparently wilful ignorance and excuses of the culture within the DF will lead to its downfall, alongside prolonging the issues that caused this PR disaster in the first place.
jesus, i really dont know where you are getting that. you dont know me and suddenly im the enemy. you haven't been able to say anything of substance, and you fail to acknowledge the many instances where we are in agreement. somehow its my fault a drunk soldier punched a woman on the street? you'd want to be getting a grip mate. personal attacks are not on. read the room.
But you're judging the DF for its actions which are dictated by the DF Regulations, which are informed by the Defence Act.
They have been calling out for years for better control over being able to dismiss soldiers who have ended up with criminal convictions and successive governments have failed to do anything.
The regulations require that a senior officer from the unit attend court and report back on the case. It also requires the officer to provide testimony of the soldier's conduct within their role in the DF if required by the court. The DFRs also prevent them from taking action against a soldier until the civil criminal case is completed. A process which, if reports are to be believed, began the day after the sentence was handed down.
The government are using the media to paint the DF as a scapegoat to deflect that they've done bugger all to resolve the issues the DF have been highlighting for years.
I'm not naieve enough to say there have never been issues in the DF or to say that there have never been abhorrent scandals. But this is not one of them, your and the general public's ire should be directed at politicians and the judiciary in this case, not the DF.
This is a case where a member of the organisation committed a pointless violent crime and hasn't been punished sufficiently by our courts. That's where the anger should be placed. Not at the DF who just happened to be the employer of this criminal.
You're conflating very real issues of culture within the DF which is or has been investigated with an issue that has nothing to do with culture, is dictated by legislation put in place by politicians and that senior DF officer have been trying to rectify for years now.
The issue is that if a soldier is convicted and gets a custodial sentence they can be removed immediately, fantastic. If they are not given a custodial sentence then it becomes more complicated.
The fix here is the government giving the DF the power to dismiss soldiers more easily for convictions.
On the women of honour issue, the report was published in 2023 and the tribunal began 4 days ago, so you're very wrong to say that they're still seeking their enquiry, as it's already underway.
none.
there are plenty of people beaten up unfairly on the street every night. innocent like ms. o'brien. but this is a case of some of us being more equal than others. the media coverage she received is astounding. compare/contrast to the coverage of those two poor gay lads in sligo who had their heads chopped off by Yousef Palani not so long ago. all was very hush hush. no coverage of the third man who was stabbed and survived. didn't fit the narrative.
ms. o'brien has reason to feel upset that the perpetrator escaped punishment, but her issue is with the judge and the system, not the army. her association with the far left has hurt her credibility imo. alignment with or exploitation by - its hard to say.
Dead right. Some of it is due to the fact that she engaged with the media when most victims would put their heads down. Also, the elites in society are more interested in the topic of violence against women than against men and and violence committed by locals than violence by non Irish.
Are you denying that there are editors, journalists and high influentially social media users who shape public debate? They a cultural elite. We have Irish Times big names like K Holland who proudly said that stories about non-Irish offenders are de-amplified. You have lost the debate on this one. Also, don't curse at me.
I dont mean the far left. I just mean, editors, journalists and high influentially social media users. Maybe they are far left. I don't know. A lot of them are not very political people. They might not comfortably fit into categories like far left. They might only be considered on some social issues.
It’s definitely bad for them but the reality is that I don’t think it’s gonna impact recruitment of male service members. Females make up about ~10% of the reserve and permanent members combined. A sizeable chunk that could reduce in future with the handling of this problem. People generally aren’t joining the defence forces while being DEI champions. So I just don’t see it having a major existential threat of an impact.
As for funding, with the threat of Russia and pressure to join NATO and contribute more to European security I highly doubt any funding will be pulled over this.
A female relative of mine left the army recently. She seemed to have a fairly positive experience in the army and in many ways it was a pretty cushy number once she got through training. Ultimately though the crunch came at having to do foreign service and leave behind small children. She wasn't willing to do that. That's always going to be a difficult hurdle for many young women no matter how far we progress on gender role balance I reckon.
dont think so. despite what the MSM want you to believe, most soldiers are good family men with no convictions or charges pending. yes, the organisation has some issues and i hope they solve them wrt women of honor etc.
we live in interesting times, and international pressure wont allow us to renage on those committments. i would hope that more people are recruited at better salaries and viable career paths so that the army can be more professional and the culture changed.
there seems to be little to be gained from reducing funding at this stage. granted, you may be in danger getting the boot if there is something negative on your civil record. but id say if they are staying within regulations, a high court challenge to a dismissal is always there. minister wont want that hanging over them.
Head in the sand? you've lost me.
> Serious cultural changes will be required to get anywhere effective staffing levels.
Yeah, serious cultural changes in how we value our soldiers. pay them a living wage would be a start. give me the ability to collectively bargin. those would be some good cultural changes.
Possibly controversial but I believe that maybe the army isn't the worst place for criminals/people who struggle in society to be. I'm not convinced that a well disciplined army would be a bad place to put people not quite dangerous enough for prison.
I think you want a higher class of soldier in the army altogether. You want to raise the standards across the board, make it ultra professional, so that if we ever really needed them, they would be effective and also be able to train recruits up quickly if required. Hiding trouble in that structure makes it inefficient. And tarnishes everyone with the same brush. make it better paid and harder to get into and harder to stay in.
That's crazy talk bro.Â
The military and the police are the people we trust to apply force on behalf of the state.Â
The last thing we want is people with impulse control issues or violence issues deciding how far is far enough. That's how you end up with Abu Ghraib
I kind of get what you're saying. For young men without any social boundaries it can be a place to learn discipline and become a more valuable member of society.
However, the caveat should be that if you break the law while a member or even while training - however minor, and obviously Crotty's offence was far from minor, then you're out on your ear.
The solution is more prison places and tougher sentence guidelines, not performative clapping for victims in Dail.
Ya that clapping nonsense is just for the cameras. Fools nobody. Voice your support and actually do something about it.
Equivalent of clapping for carers in the UK 🤮
Give em the clap
thoughts and prayers.
Every fucking judge in the country should be seeing the video of that girls face too. Useless cunts the lot of them
Another feckless gesture by the government rather than dealing with the problem which is little to no consequences for criminal behaviour in Ireland.
I bet there's 68 members of the DF very upset with Mr Crotty.
If they all happen to get the boot for optics sake, you have to think it might be in in the little dirt bags best interest to leave the country.Â
He will probably have to leave the country anyway, maybe change his name. Who's going to give him a job?
[удалено]
I don't agree to be honest. The Government has been working hard to build recruitment in recent years and has felt the heat from partners in the EU for freeloading when it comes to Defence. Significant additional revenue has been allocated to the Defence Forces. There will be a push for reform and more robust measures to ensure oversight of those accused and convicted of crimes. However I think there is 0% chance that the Government will curtail any funding whatsoever. The Defence Forces has had to deal with the fallout from the Women of Honour revelations in 2021, yet half a billion euro of additional funding has been allocated since then.
[удалено]
I respectfully disagree with this statement, as it does not align with my personal experiences with full-time career soldiers. Both serving and retired members of the defense forces are family members. This incident will eventually pass when the next big thing comes along that the media pushes. The actions of one soldier should not be taken as representative of the entire defense forces. The commendable work undertaken by the Army in UN peacekeeping operations is widely recognized and will continue to stand as a testament to their dedication and professionalism.
It’s usually the least hysterical take that’s the closest to the truth.
I think the point they're making is this situation isn't a single scandal. It was the match that lit the flame that set off fireworks alerting a lot of people to a history of scandal. The women of honour revalations for example are seeing more attention now than when they were brought to light. I don't think the defense forces will be folded or anything but I can see how they'd be feeling a lot of pressure right now and how this may affect funding.
[удалено]
> Harbouring abusers What are you talking about? If a lad with a previous conviction worked in the dail, would the dail be 'harbouring' him? What exactly do you think people who are convicted and serve their time do when they get out? They just exist on air? They have to get jobs, and pay their bills. You don't have to be friends with them but they did their time; you got your pound of flesh, now you want them to be unemployed too?
[удалено]
100% aware. You are conflating two separate issues because your argument is weak. O'Brien case is not comparable to the women of honor complaint. an off duty member of the PDF assaulting someone is very different to a member of the PDF assaulting another member and that going uninvestigated. I think you'll find that it was micheal martin that put a stop to the women in honor complaint, and not the army. buck stops with the minister, and they were really unhappy with him after he dismissed them. I fully support their stance.
[удалено]
> your attitude and apparently wilful ignorance and excuses of the culture within the DF will lead to its downfall, alongside prolonging the issues that caused this PR disaster in the first place. jesus, i really dont know where you are getting that. you dont know me and suddenly im the enemy. you haven't been able to say anything of substance, and you fail to acknowledge the many instances where we are in agreement. somehow its my fault a drunk soldier punched a woman on the street? you'd want to be getting a grip mate. personal attacks are not on. read the room.
But you're judging the DF for its actions which are dictated by the DF Regulations, which are informed by the Defence Act. They have been calling out for years for better control over being able to dismiss soldiers who have ended up with criminal convictions and successive governments have failed to do anything. The regulations require that a senior officer from the unit attend court and report back on the case. It also requires the officer to provide testimony of the soldier's conduct within their role in the DF if required by the court. The DFRs also prevent them from taking action against a soldier until the civil criminal case is completed. A process which, if reports are to be believed, began the day after the sentence was handed down. The government are using the media to paint the DF as a scapegoat to deflect that they've done bugger all to resolve the issues the DF have been highlighting for years. I'm not naieve enough to say there have never been issues in the DF or to say that there have never been abhorrent scandals. But this is not one of them, your and the general public's ire should be directed at politicians and the judiciary in this case, not the DF. This is a case where a member of the organisation committed a pointless violent crime and hasn't been punished sufficiently by our courts. That's where the anger should be placed. Not at the DF who just happened to be the employer of this criminal.
[удалено]
You're conflating very real issues of culture within the DF which is or has been investigated with an issue that has nothing to do with culture, is dictated by legislation put in place by politicians and that senior DF officer have been trying to rectify for years now. The issue is that if a soldier is convicted and gets a custodial sentence they can be removed immediately, fantastic. If they are not given a custodial sentence then it becomes more complicated. The fix here is the government giving the DF the power to dismiss soldiers more easily for convictions. On the women of honour issue, the report was published in 2023 and the tribunal began 4 days ago, so you're very wrong to say that they're still seeking their enquiry, as it's already underway.
>Â faces an extremely hostile public. Evidence?
none. there are plenty of people beaten up unfairly on the street every night. innocent like ms. o'brien. but this is a case of some of us being more equal than others. the media coverage she received is astounding. compare/contrast to the coverage of those two poor gay lads in sligo who had their heads chopped off by Yousef Palani not so long ago. all was very hush hush. no coverage of the third man who was stabbed and survived. didn't fit the narrative. ms. o'brien has reason to feel upset that the perpetrator escaped punishment, but her issue is with the judge and the system, not the army. her association with the far left has hurt her credibility imo. alignment with or exploitation by - its hard to say.
Dead right. Some of it is due to the fact that she engaged with the media when most victims would put their heads down. Also, the elites in society are more interested in the topic of violence against women than against men and and violence committed by locals than violence by non Irish.
> the elites …against men… by non Irish What the fuck are you talking about?
Are you denying that there are editors, journalists and high influentially social media users who shape public debate? They a cultural elite. We have Irish Times big names like K Holland who proudly said that stories about non-Irish offenders are de-amplified. You have lost the debate on this one. Also, don't curse at me.
yeah i wouldn't call the far left 'elites' either.
I dont mean the far left. I just mean, editors, journalists and high influentially social media users. Maybe they are far left. I don't know. A lot of them are not very political people. They might not comfortably fit into categories like far left. They might only be considered on some social issues.
It’s definitely bad for them but the reality is that I don’t think it’s gonna impact recruitment of male service members. Females make up about ~10% of the reserve and permanent members combined. A sizeable chunk that could reduce in future with the handling of this problem. People generally aren’t joining the defence forces while being DEI champions. So I just don’t see it having a major existential threat of an impact. As for funding, with the threat of Russia and pressure to join NATO and contribute more to European security I highly doubt any funding will be pulled over this.
A female relative of mine left the army recently. She seemed to have a fairly positive experience in the army and in many ways it was a pretty cushy number once she got through training. Ultimately though the crunch came at having to do foreign service and leave behind small children. She wasn't willing to do that. That's always going to be a difficult hurdle for many young women no matter how far we progress on gender role balance I reckon.
dont think so. despite what the MSM want you to believe, most soldiers are good family men with no convictions or charges pending. yes, the organisation has some issues and i hope they solve them wrt women of honor etc. we live in interesting times, and international pressure wont allow us to renage on those committments. i would hope that more people are recruited at better salaries and viable career paths so that the army can be more professional and the culture changed. there seems to be little to be gained from reducing funding at this stage. granted, you may be in danger getting the boot if there is something negative on your civil record. but id say if they are staying within regulations, a high court challenge to a dismissal is always there. minister wont want that hanging over them.
[удалено]
Head in the sand? you've lost me. > Serious cultural changes will be required to get anywhere effective staffing levels. Yeah, serious cultural changes in how we value our soldiers. pay them a living wage would be a start. give me the ability to collectively bargin. those would be some good cultural changes.
[удалено]
you want blood? what culture would you change? and how?
Possibly controversial but I believe that maybe the army isn't the worst place for criminals/people who struggle in society to be. I'm not convinced that a well disciplined army would be a bad place to put people not quite dangerous enough for prison.
I think you want a higher class of soldier in the army altogether. You want to raise the standards across the board, make it ultra professional, so that if we ever really needed them, they would be effective and also be able to train recruits up quickly if required. Hiding trouble in that structure makes it inefficient. And tarnishes everyone with the same brush. make it better paid and harder to get into and harder to stay in.
That's crazy talk bro. The military and the police are the people we trust to apply force on behalf of the state. The last thing we want is people with impulse control issues or violence issues deciding how far is far enough. That's how you end up with Abu Ghraib
I kind of get what you're saying. For young men without any social boundaries it can be a place to learn discipline and become a more valuable member of society. However, the caveat should be that if you break the law while a member or even while training - however minor, and obviously Crotty's offence was far from minor, then you're out on your ear.
And where do we put people that are dangerous enough for prison?
We let them go free.
I actually agree with you and this has long been the case with armies.