Varadkar slams Fox segment on 'surging crime' in Ireland
The Fox News segment, which went viral on social media on Wednesday, claimed that Ireland has seen a '114% increase in murder and assault attempts'.
It also claimed that Dublin now ranks among the 'top ten most dangerous cities in Europe' after being named as one of the safest cities in the world back in 2003.
Yesterday, Trump singled out Irish Pharmaceuticals for new Tariffs.Also yesterday, Fox News did a hit job on Ireland… citing 2024 headlines about crime statistics and bringing on Douglas Murray as a panel guest to discuss it.
If your business depends on American tourists…… pic.twitter.com/XMMHg7dZ1c — Nick Delehanty (@Nick_Delehanty) August 6, 2025
The piece openly 'connected the dots' between rising immigration numbers and supposed rising crime rates and has subsequently proven to be very popular with the far-right.
However, taking to social media on Wednesday evening, former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar lauded a 'fact-based' response to the segment, highlighting how Fox had used 'the most brazen manipulation of statistics' to produce the already infamous segment.
Twitter account, Danny boy, which frequently tackles misinformation online, responded to the clip writing: 'Fox News aired a segment on crime in Ireland, specifically Dublin, on 'The Will Cain Show'. The most brazen manipulation of statistics you're ever likely to see, lapped up by Trump-voters who don't care if something is true or not… Leo Varadkar at the count in the RDS on Saturday morning. Pic: Michael Chester
'Firstly, there was an increase in murders in the Dublin Metropolitan Region in 2024. 2023: 12 2024: 13
'One additional case of murder was recorded, which is not a 114% increase obviously. 13 murders in a population of 2.1 million people is one of the lower rates in the world.
'Secondly, this is the number of murders in the Dublin Metropolitan Region in recent years and I'll include a few older years for reference.
'2007: 31 2008: 23 2009: 26 2010: 29 2021: 10 2022: 18 2023: 12 2024: 13
'Maybe by 'surging' he meant '58% fewer murders in 2024 vs 2007.' Leo Varadkar. Pic: Leah Farrell/RollingNews.ie
'Fox News claimed 'city of Dublin where murder and assault attempts are surging 114%.' The actual statistic Fox News is butchering appears stolen from Gript, who stupidly claimed: 'Attempts or Threats to Murder, Assaults, Harassments & Related offences up 114% since *2003*'
'1. CSO (Central Statistics Office) say you can't compare 2024 with 2003 due to the problems with PULSE that weren't fixed until recently. Not that it stopped Gript doing it.
'2. Moreover, that offence group includes online stalking and social media barely existed back in 2003.'
The account didn't stop there, also tackling one of the more egregious claims that Dublin is now one of the most dangerous cities in Europe. Varadkar took to Twitter/X to laud a response to the Fox segment. Pic: Niall Carson/PA Archive/PA Images
'Quote: 'Dublin was once one of the safest cities in the world, it now ranks as one of the top 10 most dangerous cities in Europe.' I'm sure Fox News will have a reputable source for this claim.
'And that source is…. comical, in some respects, also existentially depressing.
'Source = 'A study by the Online Betting Guide' in a survey titled 'Europe Nightlife Index Casinos'
'So, according to a clickbait gambling company, who wouldn't say what their methodology was, Dublin is in the Top 10 most unsafe cities in Europe. 'Made it up' school of statistics.
To sum up his points, Danny Boy wrote: '1. There was no '114% increase in murder or assault attempts' in Dublin.
'2. clickbait gambling company cited as a source. In summary, entire segment is utter… Dublin, like all cities, has crime. It's one of the safer capital cities in the world, come visit.'
I think the fact-based content this guy produces is one of the few reasons to stay on X. And, no, I don't know him from Adam and that's not the point anyway. https://t.co/pd4Jd96DIb — Leo Varadkar (@LeoVaradkar) August 6, 2025
Responding to the impressive thread, Leo Varadkar wrote: 'I think the fact-based content this guy produces is one of the few reasons to stay on X. And, no, I don't know him from Adam and that's not the point anyway.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
an hour ago
- Irish Examiner
US sprinter Fred Kerley provisionally suspended for whereabouts failures
Olympic 100 metres silver and bronze medallist Fred Kerley has been provisionally suspended by the Athletics Integrity Unit for whereabouts failures, the organisation said on Tuesday. American Kerley, the 100m world champion in 2022, plans to contest the allegation that he violated anti-doping rules. "He strongly believes that one or more of his alleged missed tests should be set aside either because he was not negligent or because the Doping Control Officer did not do what was reasonable under the circumstances to locate him at his designated location," an attorney for Kerley said in a statement posted on his X account. He withdrew from the U.S. track and field trials late last month, writing on social media that he was: "Taking some time out to get back on track." "The 100m should be a straight sprint. 2025 has presented many hurdles," he wrote on X. "Thanks to all my supporters." He last competed a month ago at the Grand Sprint Series in Norwalk, California.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Chance to end the scourge of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland cannot be lost again
More than seven years ago, the first collective statement from loyalist paramilitaries since the 1994 ceasefire was read out on their behalf by the former Church of Ireland Archbishop Alan Harper in the Linen Hall Library in Belfast. Dubbed a Loyalist Declaration of Transformation, it received widespread media coverage and was welcomed by the then taoiseach Leo Varadkar as 'a commitment to ensure loyalist communities are at the centre of Northern Ireland's peace and political transformation'. No such support was offered by the British prime minister or the secretary of state for Northern Ireland of the day. Indeed, the British government did nothing then, or since, to build on the declaration's contents or see any value in what it might mean. Perhaps little remembered now, the declaration had come following months of close engagement with a small team of interlocutors and the paramilitary leaderships of the loyalist paramilitary groups – the UDA , the UVF and the Red Hand Commando. READ MORE Finalised and agreed over a day of intense discussion, it offered a basis for change and its intention was to make clear a new direction away from paramilitarism towards communal and social development. Ignored by the British government after it was released, to my knowledge, no British representative ever sought afterwards to meet the interlocutors about what they had done, how they had done it and where it might lead. That was, and remains, a lost opportunity. Those opportunities briefly offered by the declaration were lost in the serious tensions over Brexit and the Northern Ireland protocol and were then compounded by the havoc of the Covid pandemic , while the loyalist leaderships became distracted by internal problems. Momentum was lost. Now that an expert is to be appointed to report on the dismantling of Northern Ireland's paramilitary groups, it would be a mistake not to revisit the 2018 declaration and to talk to those who brought it about. Clearly the leaderships trusted those interlocutors. Paramilitary leaders do not make collective public statements of intent too often. They took the declaration very, very seriously, even if others did not. A large chunk of the declaration addressed ongoing criminality. However, it is understandable that many would dismiss such comments as a cynical ploy to deflect attention from behaviour that had continued unabated, or grown, since 1998. The Loyalist Declaration of Transformation was welcomed by Leo Varadkar, taoiseach at the time it was issued. Photograph:Unfortunately, the scale of criminality today and since, involving loyalist paramilitaries – everything from drugs, to controlling prostitution, to the extortion that too often happens in their own communities – gives only further credence to those doubts. Nevertheless, the best way to isolate, expose and deal with criminals is through changes that isolate them in their own communities, backed and supported by the Police Service of Northern Ireland , from its highest levels to its lowest. Certainly, the absence of such an agreement serves criminals better than if one were in play, where structures and mechanisms could help identify and charge those who wantonly impose coercion and misery on their communities. If a new declaration is to be agreed now, loyalist paramilitary leaders must work hand-in-hand with the police. However, more than that is needed. New measures to improve education within loyalist communities are urgently required, as is more investment. In addition, loyalist communities must be represented politically by their own – an outcome sadly lacking since the Belfast Agreement , even if it began with hope under David Ervine and Gary McMichael . But it is not just about loyalist leaders. Unionist political leaders of all colours, many of whom have long ignored loyalist communities, must work to make such areas more confident, to offer hope of better days. This abdication of social and political responsibility by London – even if the blame has to be shared with unionist political leaders – has contributed significantly to the deprivation, the sense of loss and the growing anxieties and expressions of anger in loyalist areas. This must change. Equally, loyalist paramilitaries, too, must begin the path of honest self-examination about their role in past bloodshed. Such a process must run in parallel to a similar course within republican communities. For both, there is still a long journey to travel. The Civic Forum that was legislated for and ran during the first couple of years after the Belfast Agreement should be reborn, but the idea of bringing communities together in such ways should not be confined to Northern Ireland. Two more should be created, one to bring communities from all parts of the island of Ireland together, and the second to look at an even more neglected relationship, the one between the island of Ireland and Britain. The three-stranded structure of the Belfast Agreement should not just be one for politicians, it should be one for the people they serve, too. In ways that can build ties, share experiences and increase understanding of the other. And it must involve loyalist communities at every turn. Everything must be conditional on paramilitary groups finally disappearing nearly 30 years after the conflict they were involved in was said to have ended. That work will not be easy. The leaderships will require support to achieve it. The difficulties should be underestimated by no one, even if most have long since lost patience with endless debate surrounding the matter. New paramilitary groups will have to be crushed decisively and swiftly. Equally, every funding pledge made by London, or, if that happens, Dublin, must be linked finally with proven changes on the ground, not just promises. There can be no repeat of the endless government grants of the past. When it comes, the report from the soon-to-be appointed expert must be hard-hitting and extensive. Tens of millions will be needed, if not more, over the years to finally eradicate the scourge of paramilitarism. The human cost and all the implications of that, in places long ignored by those in power, will be much greater if, yet again, an opportunity for change is missed and little is achieved. The chance cannot be thrown away again. Graham Spencer is Emeritus Professor of Social and Political Conflict at the University of Portsmouth.
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
What deal might emerge from the Trump-Putin summit?
US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin will discuss a possible deal to end the war in Ukraine when they meet on Friday in Alaska for a summit that is also likely to affect wider European security. European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky plan to speak with Mr Trump tomorrow amid fears that Washington, hitherto Ukraine's leading arms supplier, may seek to dictate unfavourable peace terms to Kyiv. What kind of deal could emerge from summit? Mr Trump said last Friday that there would be "some swapping of territories to the betterment of both". This prompted consternation in Kyiv and European capitals that Russia could be rewarded for 11 years of efforts - the last three in full-blown war - to seize Ukrainian land. It occupies about 19% of Ukraine. Ukraine controls no Russian territory. "It's a reasonable concern to think that Trump will be bamboozled by Putin and cut a terrible deal at Ukraine's expense," said Daniel Fried, a former senior US diplomat now with the Atlantic Council think-tank. But "better outcomes" for Ukraine were possible if Mr Trump and his team "wake up to the fact that Putin is still playing them". One could entail agreeing an "armistice line" instead of a transfer of territory, with only de facto - not legal - recognition of Russia's current gains. Any sustainable peace deal would also have to tackle such issues as future security guarantees for Ukraine, its aspirations to join NATO, the restrictions demanded by Moscow on the size of its military, and the future of Western sanctions on Russia. Mr Trump has not commented on those issues since announcing the summit with Mr Putin, though his administration has said Ukraine cannot join NATO. Diplomats say there is an outside possibility that Mr Trump might instead strike a unilateral deal with Mr Putin, prioritising lucrative energy contracts and potential arms control accords. Mr Trump himself has said he might conclude in Alaska that a Ukraine peace deal cannot be done. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the possibility of Mr Trump clinching a unilateral deal with Mr Putin. What if Ukraine objects to any Trump-Putin deal? Mr Trump would face strong resistance from Mr Zelensky and his European allies if any deal expected Ukraine to cede territory. Mr Zelensky says Ukraine's constitution prohibits such an outcome unless there is a referendum to change it. Mr Trump could try to coerce Kyiv to accept such a deal by threatening to stop arms supplies and intelligence sharing. But analysts say there is more chance Ukraine might accept a freezing of battlelines and an unstable, legally non-binding partition. One European official told Reuters that, even if Mr Trump did renege on recent promises to resume arms supplies to Ukraine, he was likely to continue allowing Europe to buy US weapons on Ukraine's behalf. "The loss of US intelligence capabilities would be the hardest element to replace. Europe can't even come close to providing that support," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. How might a deal affect Trump's support at home? There would be big political risks in the US for Mr Trump in abandoning Ukraine, said John Herbst, a former US ambassador to Kyiv, now with the Atlantic Council. This would portray him as "an accomplice" in Putin's attack on Ukraine. "I don't think Trump wants to be seen that way, for sure," he said. Despite his strong political position at home, Mr Trump would also come under fire even from parts of the American right if he were to be seen as caving in to Russia. "To reward Putin ... would be to send the exact opposite message that we must be sending to dictators, and would-be-dictators, across the globe," Brian Fitzpatrick, a Republican lawmaker and former FBI agent, said on X last week. How might Ukraine's European allies respond? EU member states have said that Ukraine must be free to decide its own future and that they were ready to contribute further to security guarantees for Kyiv. Oana Lungescu, a former NATO spokesperson now with the RUSI think-tank, said European states must move much faster to arm Ukraine, and start EU accession talks in September. Jana Kobzova, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said that "... if an unacceptable deal emerges from Alaska, European capitals will go into yet another diplomatic and charm offensive vis-a-vis Trump". "European leaders are increasingly aware that the future of Ukraine's security is inseparable from that of the rest of Europe - and they can't let Putin alone decide its future shape and form."
