Garda struck in hit-and-run e-bike incident in Dublin
A garda responding to reports of a disturbance in Blanchardstown, Dublin, on Friday was struck by an e-bike that failed to remain at the scene.
Gardaí
are now appealing for witnesses to the incident, which occurred after officers responded to a report of the e-bike causing a disturbance in Porterstown Park at about 2.30pm.
A Garda spokesperson said a member approached two males on the e-bike and directed them to dismount. The bike accelerated, striking the garda, before leaving the scene.
The garda was taken to hospital for treatment for injuries that are not life-threatening. He has since been discharged.
READ MORE
Anyone who witnessed the event is asked to come forward. Gardaí are also asking for people with footage from the area at the time to share this with the investigating team.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Revelations show appalling personal behaviour among some CHI medics
With the very future of Children's Health Ireland up for discussion in Government, further revelations about a toxic work culture operating in part of one of its hospitals will bolster the case of those who believe the organisation should simply be subsumed into the Health Service Executive . Even among those who favour its continuation as an independent entity, there are serious doubts as to whether CHI, which is responsible for the governance and operation of the three paediatric hospitals in Dublin – Temple Street , Crumlin and Tallaght – is fit for the job of running the new national children's hospital. Waves of scandal and controversy have overwhelmed the organisation in recent months. A recent report found that most hip surgeries carried out on children were unnecessary . Prior to that, it emerged that devices not cleared for surgical use were inserted into children suffering from scoliosis – the management of which has been another long-running controversy. READ MORE Its chairman and four board members have resigned. The revelations today have been quietly circulating in senior health and political circles in recent days, where they have shocked even the most hardened veterans of scandals in the health services. They paint a picture of an almost unbelievably toxic culture that was operating in a part of one of the CHI hospitals – to the extent that 'numerous participants' who took part in the confidential survey process 'expressed concern for the emotional and physical wellbeing of colleagues working in the service'. [ Report reveals 'toxic culture' among consultants at CHI hospital Opens in new window ] Repeatedly, throughout the report, the conclusions of the observers and the testimony of the employees who participated in its inquiries show that a culture of extreme toxicity characterised the operations of part of the CHI hospital. While one consultant – who is not identified by name in the report – features prominently, there are also complaints about other consultants and a hospital management unable or unwilling to deal with the consequences of the behaviour of some senior medics. Relationships between certain senior clinical figures deteriorated to the extent that one consultant instigated a legal action for defamation against another. 'It is reasonable to assume that such a case can only arise as a result of the fraught relationships within the ... service,' the report notes. 'Fraught relationships' seems to be something of an understatement. The toll on medics who were training under some of the consultants was especially acute. They spoke of 'bullying' and 'harassment', being subjected to 'humiliating and intimidating experiences' and of an 'environment where an individual feels they may be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes'. The report also includes details of how the National Treatment Purchase Fund (NTPF) may have been abused by the manipulation of waiting lists. Pointing to a greater number of patients seen in private time slots than at public clinic, it asks: 'Was throughput prioritised over patient care in NTPF clinics, noting there is a €200 fee per patient, or are the public outpatient clinics failing to operate at full capacity?' Yesterday, the Sunday Times reported that Minister for Health Jennifer Carroll MacNeill had ordered a full audit of governance and practices at CHI. There are very clearly significant systemic failings in parts of the organisation and in the hospitals for which it is responsible. But the revelations today show something else too: appalling personal behaviour by some senior medics which damaged the care that patients in the hospitals received. Some trainees felt punished and excluded, belittled and victimised, to the extent that some felt that the experience – 'working in a hostile environment', as one said – had a detrimental effect on their lives. Aside from the personal consequences for people subjected to the behaviour of some senior colleagues, the report points out repeatedly that it creates an atmosphere that damages the care of patients. Aside from individual instances detailed in the report, the toxic relationships also poison the atmosphere where people are supposed to be working together for the benefit of the patients. 'The communication style, accusatory language and indeed unprofessional antics that continued over this period add to further compromise interpersonal relations, heighten levels of mistrust among colleagues and ultimately are a distraction from patient-centric care,' it found. 'Consistently throughout this examination, it was found that participant experiences reflected a culture in which challenging behaviour appears to be the norm,' the report found. 'It is critical that an organisation takes time to reflect on and own the culture that exists and then seeks to address the issues and bring about the required change.'
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Report reveals ‘toxic culture' among consultants at CHI hospital
A 'negative and toxic' work culture at a hospital run by Children's Health Ireland (CHI), in which multiple staff complained of 'unprofessional and disruptive behaviour from consultants', contributed to the undermining of care and treatment for sick children, an internal report has found. The CHI report also noted one consultant had taken a legal action for defamation against another. The report, which also revealed possible misuse of the National Treatment Purchase Fund , was compiled in 2021-2022 but was only given to the Department of Health last Monday. It paints an astonishing picture of the work culture in parts of one of the best-known hospitals in the country, where relations between some staff and between some staff and management had deteriorated to the point where 'challenging behaviour appears to be the norm'. READ MORE 'Numerous participants expressed concern for the emotional and physical wellbeing of colleagues working in the service,' it said. In some cases, it identified where the work culture and the interpersonal difficulties which characterised some key relationships had led to shortcomings in the case of patients. 'Dysfunctional relationships played a significant part in leading to two ... cases both of which led to surgeries evolving with complications and ultimately children having prolonged recoveries,' it said. 'Feedback from participants all describing an environment and working life that is adversely impacted by the 'negative' and 'toxic' culture that exists in the department.' [ Revelations show appalling personal behaviour among some CHI medics Opens in new window ] While the report did not identify the staff members involved by name, it laid out in detail how a small number of people were involved. 'Across multiple participants there was one consultant identified consistently as creating a psychologically unsafe environment not conducive to learning,' it said. 'Two specific examples where this consultant's behaviour and actions reportedly had a significant impact on trainee careers and/or wellbeing were staunchly brought to the attention of this examination through participant interviews.' In some cases, the behaviour led to the departure of other staff members. Three members of staff who left one department in the hospital all said they left 'for one reason only – bullying'. Staff members – including some highly skilled medical professionals who were training for senior roles – said one consultant would 'punish and exclude you, belittle you and say you were no good. I felt fearful, felt unsafe to ask [the consultant] for help.' 'There's a lot of people who have come across [the consultant's] path and it has had a detrimental impact on their lives,' said another. After giving examples of one consultant's behaviour, the report noted: 'The above reflections from very personal experiences appear to highlight a pattern of abrupt, unprofessional, intimidating and volatile behaviour. 'Behaviours displayed by this consultant appear to be consistent with and reflective of conduct that has been identified as leading to and creating a psychologically unsafe environment, that is an environment where an individual feels they may be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes.' The effect on trainees was especially acute, the report said, quoting one member of staff who said: 'Since I started I have been experiencing a lot of bullying/harassment mainly from two consultants ... I feel that I am working in a hostile environment, waiting to be victimised. I am subjected to humiliating and intimidating experiences. They are always undervaluing my performance. 'It has reached a stage that it is affecting my self-esteem, confidence and performance at work in hospital and also at home affecting my family life. The thought of doing on call with these consultants makes me so nervous and stressful.' CHI did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Forget hope. Be a hopeful pessimist instead
Pope Francis was a nice fella, but was he wrong about hope? Diagnosing the problems of the modern world, he argued that what we need more than anything today is belief in a better future. Yet many of the worst actors globally are infused with overconfidence, or excessive optimism. Hope itself appears to have become an impediment to tackling urgent challenges. Action on climate change is weakened by a general hope technology will come to the rescue. European defence against Russia is undermined by a hazy belief Vladimir Putin will metamorphose into a peacemaker. Dealing with Ireland's housing crisis is crippled by a faith in the same old policies. I've lost track of the number of people who said in the wake of Donald Trump's election as US president 'ah, sure, he mightn't be so bad'. And then there's the irrational exuberance surrounding artificial intelligence , with governments now tending to see the glass as half full regarding this potentially cataclysmic technology. Not for nothing is the biography of OpenAI boss Sam Altman called The Optimist. Philosophers have long discussed the paradoxical nature of hope. READ MORE 'Only one thing is more stupid than absolute pessimism and that is absolute optimism,' said Albert Camus. His thinking on the matter was informed by a conundrum that also troubled Pope Francis: Why are people so indifferent to the suffering of others? Francis described indifference as 'the opposite of love', and believed it was a much more common evil in human affairs than hate. Camus, who was active in the French resistance against the Nazis, was also deeply troubled by political apathy and saw it as essentially anti-love. Modern man 'fornicated and read the papers', Camus wrote in a damning assessment of our unmotivated condition. Francis saw hope as the answer to indifference. 'It is often said that 'so long as there is life, there is hope', but the truth, if anything, is the opposite: it is hope that keeps life going, protects it, takes care of it, helps it to grow,' he wrote. Camus was more ambivalent about optimism, and argued pessimism could be a more powerful force against inertia, what he called 'man's strongest temptation'. He was particularly wary of ideological hope in 'some great idea' – be it religious or secular – that deflected us from reality. 'We find in his [Camus's] pessimism a clearsightedness that cuts through all the subterfuges and evasions available in his time to the beating core of his activism: that we must do what must be done, for reasons of justice and solidarity – because we owe it to our fellow human beings to prevent their suffering as best we can ... Camus proposes a fierce philosophy of action that is as bold as it is stark, stripped from any confidence of victory,' philosopher Mara Van der Lugt writes in a new book, Hopeful Pessimism. [ Don't dismiss Peig Sayers. Her stoic folk wisdom has plenty to offer today Opens in new window ] Camus's wariness of hope seems well founded when considering the utopian thinking of today's tech moguls. Elon Musk , the world's richest man, dreams of occupying Mars and re-engineering democracy. And to achieve this goal, we need less – not more – concern for the suffering of our fellow human beings. 'The fundamental weakness of western civilisation is empathy. The empathy exploit. They're exploiting a bug in western civilisation, which is the empathy response,' the multi-billionaire whined on the Joe Rogan podcast earlier this year. For utopians like Musk, human solidarity interferes with grand visions. So what is the right approach to hope? One way of resolving the conundrum is by definitions. Hope can be defined as either positive thinking or constructive thinking. One is more passive than the other. Optimism can be defined as a belief in a positive outcome. It has a faith element, and potentially carries higher risks and rewards. Studies show optimists live longer but are also more likely to take risks. 'The evidence suggests that optimism is widespread, stubborn and costly,' the psychologist Daniel Kahneman said. He had in mind particularly the optimism around public projects, and how spending estimates on infrastructure were always pitched towards the most hopeful end of the spectrum. Hello National Children's Hospital . Then there is utopianism, which can be defined as an ideological attachment to progress or some idealised future. [ Could there be good reason to believe in life after death? Opens in new window ] So defined, it's always good to have some hope. Treat optimism with caution and be very wary of utopianism. Van der Lugt resolves the matter in a different way, saying we should strive to become 'hopeful pessimists'. This aims to take the best of what optimism and pessimism both have to offer. It has the advantage of drawing us away from self-centred hope, and towards the responsibilities we have to our fellow human beings and the wider world. 'If anything, the pessimists have taught me this: with eyes full of that darkness there can still be this strange shattering openness, like a door cracked open, for the good to make its entry into life. Since all things are uncertain, so too is the future, and so there is always the possibility of change for better as there is for worse,' writes Van der Lugt. An exclusive focus on hope can lead us towards passivity and indifference. Better that we are hopeful pessimists who, as Van der Lugt puts it, 'strive for change without certainties, without expecting anything from our efforts other than the knowledge that we have done what we are called upon to do as moral agents in a time of change'.
