‘Brazen' disregard for roads policing needs to be addressed quickly
Garda Commissioner Drew Harris said that an unpublished report found gardai showed a 'blatant disregard' for their job while they knew their actions were being reviewed.
Advertisement
It comes amid a focus on road safety in Ireland, with the government introducing new speed laws and the Garda Commissioner mandating that frontline gardai dedicate 30 minutes of road policing duties per shift.
Sean Canney, a junior minister with responsibility for road safety, said the findings were 'shocking' and 'serious'.
'There's no point in us bringing in laws, reducing speed limits, doing all of this kind of thing, if we don't have a functional enforcement section within the gardaí,' he said on RTE Radio.
Mr Canney said his thoughts were with the families of the 95 people who had died on Irish roads so far this year.
Advertisement
He said he had not read the report conducted by the consultancy firm Crowe, which has carried out investigations on behalf of An Garda Siochana previously, but planned to meet the Justice Minister Jim O'Callaghan and both the outgoing and incoming Garda Commissioners over the issue.
'I'll be talking to the commissioners to express my deep concern with what is in this report,' he said.
He said the independent Crowe report was conducted while the reviewer was 'sitting in the car with a garda that wasn't doing his duty and didn't seem to have a problem with that'.
'So I think there is definitely a serious case to be answered here as quickly as possible.'
Advertisement
Mr Harris said he commissioned the examination after he received an anonymous report from a whistleblower.
The chairwoman of the Policing and Community Safety Authority, Elaine Byrne, said the report was 'shocking' and found some gardai showed a 'blatant disregard' for road policing while they knew their actions were being reviewed.
'They were openly hostile to doing their job,' she said, in what she described as a 'wake-up call' for An Garda Siochana.
She also described an issue with fear among Garda managers of carrying out poor performance management, which she said Mr Harris agreed was an issue.
Advertisement
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
25 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Time spent on porn websites down by a third after age crackdown
Pornography websites have seen a sharp drop in the time British users spend on them after online safety laws forced the sites to introduce age checks. The average time UK visitors spent on the most popular four adult websites has fallen by a third since age verification laws came into effect, according to analytics company Semrush. The figures suggest that large numbers of users are visiting the sites, only to leave when presented with the new checks. Adult websites must ensure that users are over 18 with checks such as ID verification, bank accounts or facial analysis. The crackdown has led to a surge in downloads of VPN software used to mask that website visitors are from the UK. The average visit on Pornhub, Britain's most popular porn website, was 11 minutes and 18 seconds on July 20, but had fallen to seven minutes and 39 seconds by July 29 – five days after age checks came into force. Across the four most popular sites – Pornhub, xHamster, XVideos and XNXX – the average visit had fallen from 12 minutes and six seconds to seven minutes and 40 seconds. The data only accounts for the first few days of the online safety checks. Semrush data showed a much smaller drop-off in total visits, indicating that people were continuing to visit the sites but potentially turning away after facing age checks. The figures do not account for the number of Britons using VPNs to bypass the restrictions. The services have surged to the top of app download stores in the last week. Nor do they account for the large number of porn sites that have not introduced age checks. Ofcom said this week it was investigating 34 websites that had not introduced age checks. 'Privacy risk' Previous age verification laws have led to huge drops in traffic. After Louisiana introduced age verification in 2023, Pornhub said its traffic had dropped by 80pc, although the state's law was more restrictive than the UK's, not allowing methods such as facial age estimation. Websites face fines of £18m or 10pc of their global turnover for failing to introduce effective age verification. Opponents of age verification have claimed that handing over details to an adult website constitutes a privacy risk. On Friday, the Government defended the laws. Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, said: 'This marks the most significant step forward in child safety since the internet was created. 'The reality is that most children aren't actively seeking out harmful, dangerous, or pornographic content – unfortunately it finds them. That's why we've taken decisive action. 'Age verification keeps children safe. Rather than looking for ways around it, let's help make the internet a safer, more positive space for children - and a better experience for everyone. That's something we should all aspire to.'
Daily Mail
25 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Elon Musk's X says Online Safety Act that requires users to provide ID to show they are over 18 is 'putting free speech at risk'
Elon Musk 's X has warned that the Online Safety Act, which requires users to prove their age, is 'putting free speech at risk'. The new rules, seen by watchdogs as a way to protect children online, have sparked a furious backlash from thousands of users. The act forces platforms like Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and X, along with sites hosting pornography, to implement strict age verification measures to prove users are over 18. But critics are outraged, arguing that age checks are blocking access to large parts of the internet that have no business being grouped with adult content. To use platforms like X, users must surrender personal details such as credit card information, ID, or even facial scans, leading many to bypass the system altogether. X has now joined the chorus of criticism, warning that unless the act is amended to be more 'balanced', 'free speech will suffer'. The uproar has already seen nearly half a million people signing a petition demanding the act be scrapped as the n umber of users searches for VPN surged since the changes came into force. But a government spokesperson has dismissed these concerns, calling the claim that the law compromises free speech as 'demonstrably false,' insisting that it is 'not designed to censor political debate'. Critics argue that age checks are blocking access to large parts of the internet that have no business being grouped with adult content The dispute reached a fever pitch earlier this week when a senior Labour minister accused Reform's Nigel Farage of aligning with 'sick paedophiles' like Jimmy Savile during the ongoing clash over the law. Technology Secretary Peter Kyle went even further, accusing Farage of siding with 'extreme pornographers' over Reform UK's vow to scrap the act. Mr Farage labelled the comments 'disgusting' and demanded an apology, however Mr Kyle later doubled down on his remarks. Now X has joined the list of critics, saying: 'When lawmakers approved these measures, they made a conscientious decision to increase censorship in the name of 'online safety.' 'It is fair to ask if UK citizens were equally aware of the trade-off being made.' The platform claims the timeframe in which they were given to meet mandatory measures had been unnecessarily tight - and despite complying, sites still faced threats of enforcement and fines, 'encouraging over-censorship'. Adding: 'A balanced approach is the only way to protect individual liberties, encourage innovation and safeguard children. 'It's safe to say that significant changes must take place to achieve these objectives in the UK.' Peter Kyle also accused the Reform UK leader Nigel Farage of being on the side of 'extreme pornographers' over the party's pledge to scrap the Online Safety Act Critics including Mr Farage claim that the law is being used to stifle free speech by blocking people from seeing some controversial political statements online Nearly half a million people have signed a petition against the Online Safety Act Ofcom said this week it had launched investigations into 34 pornography sites for new age-check requirements. It comes as Spotify users were left furious after they were told their accounts were at risk of being deleted if they fail to verify their age when trying to access videos marked 18+, with some urging users to stop using it. One user questioned: 'How old do you have to be to listen to music?', while another declared: 'I think I'm deleting payments to any company that ever sends me something like this.' Previously, campaign group, Big Brother Watch, also warned of the 'catastrophic effect on free speech online' that the Ofcom legislation could have with 'intrusive new age checks to access a range of websites'. Xbox have also followed suit, announcing they too will be investing in technologies and tools to ensure players have age-appropriate experiences on their platform, while sending notifications to UK users to verify their age. A Government spokesperson said: 'It is demonstrably false that the Online Safety Act compromises free speech. 'As well as legal duties to keep children safe, the very same law places clear and unequivocal duties on platforms to protect freedom of expression. Failure to meet either obligation can lead to severe penalties, including fines of up to 10% of global revenue or £18 million, whichever is greater. 'The Act is not designed to censor political debate and does not require platforms to age gate any content other than those which present the most serious risks to children such as pornography or suicide and self-harm content. 'Platforms have had several months to prepare for this law. It is a disservice to their users to hide behind deadlines as an excuse for failing to properly implement it.'
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed to and what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
