> Judge Tom O’Donnell suspended O’Gorman’s sentence last autumn after the Naval officer agreed to make a significant payment to the victim and she agreed to accept it.
This needs to not be a thing imo.
The big problem is it's not on the part of the victim to agree to this.
When I was assaulted and the man was convicted I went to court with a prepared statement saying how I didn't want the man who assaulted me to be let off by paying me a few bob I wanted him punished for what he had done.
Judge ordered compensation and I just sat their stunned that you could just buy your way out of any real punishment.
It's also frankly a tiny amount most of the time.
I was awarded 2000 for the assault that happened to me.
That didn't even cover the cost of the therapy I went through afterwards let alone the doctors appointments or loss of earnings from having to change jobs.
So the idea that by paying compensation is saving people having to go through the civil side is just nonsense because I still have to do that too.
Yes civil cases are out of reach for a lot of people because of how expensive representation is but my problem isn’t with a victim being compensated it’s with people being able to lessen their punishments if they have money. I only have €5,000 judge so I’ll buy the 2 years with 2 suspended option please!
Judge is Tom O'Donnell.
The headline calls him an officer but he's a Petty Officer, so he's an NCO (equivalent to an army sergeant), rather than it being a case of "the leadership gets off"
> Asked about O’Gorman continuing membership of the Naval Service, the Defence Forces said they “have been clear that there is no place for any form of gender-based violence, abuse or any form or inappropriate behaviour” by members when they on or off duty. The Defence Forces unequivocally condemns any actions by serving personnel that are contrary to military regulations or that do not reflect our values,” the forces said.
Any conviction in a civilian court has implications for the retention and service of members of the Defence Forces, as stipulated in military regulations.”
Seems slightly hollow when RTÉ and a subsequent independent review of the Army found that it barely tolerates women and a discernible pattern of rape and sexual assault was present.
>Any conviction in a civilian court has implications for the retention and service of members of the Defence Forces, as stipulated in military regulations.
Someone should point out it's not the media or the public they need to tell that to.
I have two sisters in the DF, and they say that it's nothing like what the media portrays it as.
The main issue they say is that bullying in general is common in the defence forces. But then independent reviewers go in looking for misogyny with the intent to find it. What then happens is that if a bully bullies 10 people in the army and 1 of those is a woman, those independent reviewers will ignore the 9 men and say that the army has an issue with women.
According to one of my sisters, yes. And she said she really feels for the male victims because they're often too ashamed to open up about it and often when they do they get far less sympathy than female rape victims.
And when I was in the reserves I knew someone who was raped and he was a man.
Yes. And the reports are making it worse by forcing a gender slant to it.
It makes male victims more vulnerable. Bullies and rapists now know that they're far more likely to get away with it when their victims are male.
The less serious side effect is that incompetent women are less likely to be effectively criticised because it's all too easy for them to accuse genuine criticism as bullying. Officers concerned for their career are too afraid to take on a woman making accusations of bullying, even if they're demonstrably false, so they don't challenge them.
That's not to say that there aren't men who do this and with success (I've heard countless stories of inept male soldiers using accusations of bullying to advance their careers). It just means that there's now a greater incentive for women to do it since they're more likely to get away with it.
Another issue it creates for female soldiers is that everyone knows that this tactic can be used to advance their career. The end result is that successful female soldiers are assumed to have gotten by based on their gender and even threats of bullying. One of my sisters faced this first hand when she was promoted ahead of some people who were senior to her.
This is definitely a form of misogyny, but it's one that's ironically perpetuated by the media focusing only on female bullying and sexual assault victims.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were honestly inquiring and not just trying to bait some sort of culture war argument. But it's clear that you didn't deserve it. Honestly, I normally try to keep my cool on Reddit, but you can just fuck right off.
I'm just relaying what my sisters are saying and you came in looking for some sort of bullshit non-existant agenda. I'm sick of people like you hooked on American political discourse who have to paint someone they don't agree with as some sort of morally corrupt vilain. It's clear that that was your intention from the first comment. You had no intent on having a good faith engagement with me.
>Look his latest comment.
My latest comment where I said that hard working women in the defence forces face misogyny in the form of their achievements being assumed to be false? Or did you miss that because it's at the end of my comment and you made up your mind about my moral character after reading a few sentences?
>It's clear what he's doing which is gearing up for a gender war battle
If you weren't so quick to to label me, you'd realise that this is the total opposite of every point I've made. Since my initial comment I've said that the bullying in the army is not as gender based as the media makes it out to be and that all genders would be better served by not viewing the issues through the lense of gender.
I'll let you have the last word, but then I'm blocking you, because I don't want to argue with someone who has no intention of arguing in bad faith.
So you're saying you want to go around beating women with a big stick?
So you're saying you cheered when Bambi's mother was shot?
Poor lad wasn't having the argument he thought he was.
Christ above. The same judge as the prior case.
It's almost as if they have an unspoken mandate to go easy on members of the defence forces and other organisations. 🤔
Then how do you explain the same sentence where they're not. People keep trying to attach their own agendas to this situation and ignore the cases that don't fit it. It's a much simpler issue - there is a judge who has handed out suspended sentences for assaults regardless of the identity of the perpetrators/victims. Their whole performance needs to be reviewed not just the ones that people want to care about.
Possibly, or O'Donnell is the type that was far, far more interested in the status and pier of the role rather than any of it's functions.
He gave another scumbag a suspended sentence a day or two after that Croddy cretin, this time for beating a homeless man half to death. One of the big mitigating factors given by O'Donnell was that the feral prick was "one of the youngest in the group" and so should have else culpability. Which some may or may not agree with... until you realise there were just three in the whole group and the one O'Donnell was calling "one of the youngest" was every single bit"one of the eldest" because he was the middle one.
It will obviously never ever happen, but I would quite like to see his pension stripped or peeled back to close to nothing. Reading more about him from Limerick folk in the last week have me questioning if he is worse than even Nolan because of his particularly nasty streak - and I fucking hate Martin Nolan and his also bogus excuses to go easy on other feral types and even pedophiles. Tough all either way!
Very true. I wasn't aware of that second case you referenced but the judge is even more of a disgrace.
I would fully get behind the idea of stripping his pension too; that is something that needs to be applied beyond this case to other public service and political personnel who for decades have been rewarded for failure.
Potentially unpopular opinion here but should all sentences like this mean being kicked out of our military forces?
A lot of top soldiers tend to be dickheads in civilian life, some of the attributes needed don’t cross over well. If shit hits the fan, you need these violent lads to an extent.
Bud, if I was in court for beating my partner, my job would be gone the minute I left the court.
The Defence Forces should be held to the highest possible standard for conduct.
Maybe you’re right, I just remember reading about a lot of SAS and other special forces lads who were psychos in civilian life but unbelievable in terms of military performance.
Those are the kind of guys they let loose on Ireland during the War of Independence. I really don’t think we want to be copying that. Besides, Ireland isn’t fighting for its survival, we don’t need to give misanthropic dickheads a pass because they’re good at war.
If they are unable to control themselves in public life and an officer shouting orders is the only authority they recognise then keep them locked in the barracks.
Committing an assault in civilian life should result in instant dishonourable discharge upon conviction.
> A lot of top soldiers tend to be dickheads in civilian life
This isn't true at all.
Most of the actual best soldiers out there are pretty well adjusted, normal guys.
The absolute fucking headcases and psychos tend to be next to useless.
Soldiers are still subject to disciplinary action if they use excessive force, including the prospect of facing a civilian court and/ or a court martial. That dickhead behaviour is **not** something you want in someone entrusted with lethal weapons.
It's not about being violent, it's about being proportionate. Someone who goes straight for violence is a liability in the military.
I think you can make a distinction between controlled application of violence which is what the military is ultimately there to do. And individual actions of illegally, brutally and persistently beating your partner.
Not the same thing and the latter is the scum of the earth.
> Potentially unpopular opinion here but should all sentences like this mean being kicked out of our military forces?
Yes. If they can't keep a cool head in tame situations like this we can't trust them to keep a cool head in high pressure situations.
[https://www.thejournal.ie/general-appointed-to-lead-probe-into-why-sailor-not-dismissed-following-assault-conviction-irish-navy-6417495-Jun2024/](https://www.thejournal.ie/general-appointed-to-lead-probe-into-why-sailor-not-dismissed-following-assault-conviction-irish-navy-6417495-Jun2024/)
Good read on the journal about this. Seems to point at convictions of personnel not being reported up the ranks.
> Judge Tom O’Donnell suspended O’Gorman’s sentence last autumn after the Naval officer agreed to make a significant payment to the victim and she agreed to accept it. This needs to not be a thing imo.
The big problem is it's not on the part of the victim to agree to this. When I was assaulted and the man was convicted I went to court with a prepared statement saying how I didn't want the man who assaulted me to be let off by paying me a few bob I wanted him punished for what he had done. Judge ordered compensation and I just sat their stunned that you could just buy your way out of any real punishment.
It seems like they look for any ‘excuse’ at all to suspend sentences. They can pay compensation!? Great! Suspended sentence.
It's also frankly a tiny amount most of the time. I was awarded 2000 for the assault that happened to me. That didn't even cover the cost of the therapy I went through afterwards let alone the doctors appointments or loss of earnings from having to change jobs. So the idea that by paying compensation is saving people having to go through the civil side is just nonsense because I still have to do that too.
In theory, a custodial sentence isn't punishment.
How come? Denial of liberty is a punishment isn’t it?
You'll need to explain that
the 2 things need to be separate, compensation is good but should be a default not a get out of gaol card.
[удалено]
Yes civil cases are out of reach for a lot of people because of how expensive representation is but my problem isn’t with a victim being compensated it’s with people being able to lessen their punishments if they have money. I only have €5,000 judge so I’ll buy the 2 years with 2 suspended option please!
Judge is Tom O'Donnell. The headline calls him an officer but he's a Petty Officer, so he's an NCO (equivalent to an army sergeant), rather than it being a case of "the leadership gets off"
Another Tom O’Donnell fully suspended sentence
He’s known in limerick for this, been like this for years
The lad’s definitely a wifebeater.
> Asked about O’Gorman continuing membership of the Naval Service, the Defence Forces said they “have been clear that there is no place for any form of gender-based violence, abuse or any form or inappropriate behaviour” by members when they on or off duty. The Defence Forces unequivocally condemns any actions by serving personnel that are contrary to military regulations or that do not reflect our values,” the forces said. Any conviction in a civilian court has implications for the retention and service of members of the Defence Forces, as stipulated in military regulations.” Seems slightly hollow when RTÉ and a subsequent independent review of the Army found that it barely tolerates women and a discernible pattern of rape and sexual assault was present.
>Any conviction in a civilian court has implications for the retention and service of members of the Defence Forces, as stipulated in military regulations. Someone should point out it's not the media or the public they need to tell that to.
Do you have a link to the rte or independent review?
https://www.rte.ie/radio/radio1/women-of-honour/
This ok? https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/1273475/limerick-woman-afraid-to-smile-after-assault-by-navy-boxer.html
This isn't the independent review is it?
I assumed you were looking for a full article? Does RTE do independent reviews??
I have two sisters in the DF, and they say that it's nothing like what the media portrays it as. The main issue they say is that bullying in general is common in the defence forces. But then independent reviewers go in looking for misogyny with the intent to find it. What then happens is that if a bully bullies 10 people in the army and 1 of those is a woman, those independent reviewers will ignore the 9 men and say that the army has an issue with women.
So is the rape and sexual assault as equal opportunity as the bullying?
According to one of my sisters, yes. And she said she really feels for the male victims because they're often too ashamed to open up about it and often when they do they get far less sympathy than female rape victims. And when I was in the reserves I knew someone who was raped and he was a man.
So you're saying the problem with rape and sexual assault is even worse than the report concluded?
Yes. And the reports are making it worse by forcing a gender slant to it. It makes male victims more vulnerable. Bullies and rapists now know that they're far more likely to get away with it when their victims are male. The less serious side effect is that incompetent women are less likely to be effectively criticised because it's all too easy for them to accuse genuine criticism as bullying. Officers concerned for their career are too afraid to take on a woman making accusations of bullying, even if they're demonstrably false, so they don't challenge them. That's not to say that there aren't men who do this and with success (I've heard countless stories of inept male soldiers using accusations of bullying to advance their careers). It just means that there's now a greater incentive for women to do it since they're more likely to get away with it. Another issue it creates for female soldiers is that everyone knows that this tactic can be used to advance their career. The end result is that successful female soldiers are assumed to have gotten by based on their gender and even threats of bullying. One of my sisters faced this first hand when she was promoted ahead of some people who were senior to her. This is definitely a form of misogyny, but it's one that's ironically perpetuated by the media focusing only on female bullying and sexual assault victims.
Got there in the end
He dismissed it in his first comment. It's clear what he's doing which is gearing up for a gender war battle. Look his latest comment.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were honestly inquiring and not just trying to bait some sort of culture war argument. But it's clear that you didn't deserve it. Honestly, I normally try to keep my cool on Reddit, but you can just fuck right off. I'm just relaying what my sisters are saying and you came in looking for some sort of bullshit non-existant agenda. I'm sick of people like you hooked on American political discourse who have to paint someone they don't agree with as some sort of morally corrupt vilain. It's clear that that was your intention from the first comment. You had no intent on having a good faith engagement with me. >Look his latest comment. My latest comment where I said that hard working women in the defence forces face misogyny in the form of their achievements being assumed to be false? Or did you miss that because it's at the end of my comment and you made up your mind about my moral character after reading a few sentences? >It's clear what he's doing which is gearing up for a gender war battle If you weren't so quick to to label me, you'd realise that this is the total opposite of every point I've made. Since my initial comment I've said that the bullying in the army is not as gender based as the media makes it out to be and that all genders would be better served by not viewing the issues through the lense of gender. I'll let you have the last word, but then I'm blocking you, because I don't want to argue with someone who has no intention of arguing in bad faith.
So you're saying you want to go around beating women with a big stick? So you're saying you cheered when Bambi's mother was shot? Poor lad wasn't having the argument he thought he was.
https://jrnl.ie/6030764
Sometimes there are no words, just a sick feeling in your stomach.
Christ above. The same judge as the prior case. It's almost as if they have an unspoken mandate to go easy on members of the defence forces and other organisations. 🤔
Then how do you explain the same sentence where they're not. People keep trying to attach their own agendas to this situation and ignore the cases that don't fit it. It's a much simpler issue - there is a judge who has handed out suspended sentences for assaults regardless of the identity of the perpetrators/victims. Their whole performance needs to be reviewed not just the ones that people want to care about.
Agreed, the whole system needs to be reviewed. Bad enough, we've accommodation and housing shortages, but it appears that applies to jail places, too.
Possibly, or O'Donnell is the type that was far, far more interested in the status and pier of the role rather than any of it's functions. He gave another scumbag a suspended sentence a day or two after that Croddy cretin, this time for beating a homeless man half to death. One of the big mitigating factors given by O'Donnell was that the feral prick was "one of the youngest in the group" and so should have else culpability. Which some may or may not agree with... until you realise there were just three in the whole group and the one O'Donnell was calling "one of the youngest" was every single bit"one of the eldest" because he was the middle one. It will obviously never ever happen, but I would quite like to see his pension stripped or peeled back to close to nothing. Reading more about him from Limerick folk in the last week have me questioning if he is worse than even Nolan because of his particularly nasty streak - and I fucking hate Martin Nolan and his also bogus excuses to go easy on other feral types and even pedophiles. Tough all either way!
Very true. I wasn't aware of that second case you referenced but the judge is even more of a disgrace. I would fully get behind the idea of stripping his pension too; that is something that needs to be applied beyond this case to other public service and political personnel who for decades have been rewarded for failure.
That sentence was the same day 19th of June 2024. He sentenced crotty and Aaron holland. It wasnt a different day at all.
Or they just don't give a fuck about violence towards women.
There's a process for dismissal.
Protest outside the daill at 6pm on the 26/06
How is that not a dischargeable offense?
Potentially unpopular opinion here but should all sentences like this mean being kicked out of our military forces? A lot of top soldiers tend to be dickheads in civilian life, some of the attributes needed don’t cross over well. If shit hits the fan, you need these violent lads to an extent.
Bud, if I was in court for beating my partner, my job would be gone the minute I left the court. The Defence Forces should be held to the highest possible standard for conduct.
Maybe you’re right, I just remember reading about a lot of SAS and other special forces lads who were psychos in civilian life but unbelievable in terms of military performance.
Those are the kind of guys they let loose on Ireland during the War of Independence. I really don’t think we want to be copying that. Besides, Ireland isn’t fighting for its survival, we don’t need to give misanthropic dickheads a pass because they’re good at war.
If by military performance you mean committing war crimes.
Performance is really just a function of training, nothing else.
If they are unable to control themselves in public life and an officer shouting orders is the only authority they recognise then keep them locked in the barracks.
Committing an assault in civilian life should result in instant dishonourable discharge upon conviction. > A lot of top soldiers tend to be dickheads in civilian life This isn't true at all. Most of the actual best soldiers out there are pretty well adjusted, normal guys. The absolute fucking headcases and psychos tend to be next to useless.
Soldiers are still subject to disciplinary action if they use excessive force, including the prospect of facing a civilian court and/ or a court martial. That dickhead behaviour is **not** something you want in someone entrusted with lethal weapons. It's not about being violent, it's about being proportionate. Someone who goes straight for violence is a liability in the military.
I think you can make a distinction between controlled application of violence which is what the military is ultimately there to do. And individual actions of illegally, brutally and persistently beating your partner. Not the same thing and the latter is the scum of the earth.
> Potentially unpopular opinion here but should all sentences like this mean being kicked out of our military forces? Yes. If they can't keep a cool head in tame situations like this we can't trust them to keep a cool head in high pressure situations.
No you don't. You need discipline officers
[https://www.thejournal.ie/general-appointed-to-lead-probe-into-why-sailor-not-dismissed-following-assault-conviction-irish-navy-6417495-Jun2024/](https://www.thejournal.ie/general-appointed-to-lead-probe-into-why-sailor-not-dismissed-following-assault-conviction-irish-navy-6417495-Jun2024/) Good read on the journal about this. Seems to point at convictions of personnel not being reported up the ranks.