Sometimes the Irish media descend almost into farce when they are reporting around the issues where they are most in agreement with each other, such as immigration, probably the most sacrosanct of all the sacred cows for Irish journalists.
The absolute groupthink and the cosy consensus has led to what is truly a strange mix of paternalism and deliberate naivety in how the legacy media views migration in general, and illegal immigration in particular.
This blinkered view tends to imagine that migrants are in almost every way superior to the people already living here – who are generally suspected of terrible and closet racism – while also insisting that diversity is our strength, and jumping on any perceived hesitancy regarding imported cultures with chants of “nazi scum off our streets” and strenuous efforts at cancellation.
Some journalists, like some NGOs, seem to spend their time rooting deep for evidence of just how awful we Irish are, especially in how we treat immigrants, despite the billions we spend on housing and healthcare and other services for mostly bogus asylum seekers. Any hint that we might expect our own people to be put first is met with extreme suspicion, even hostility.
Bearing all that in mind, it was still rather comical to read a headline in The Irish Times this week which said: “Pork sausages served on flight deporting 24 men from Ireland to Pakistan”. Are we meant to be shocked? To feel upset that Ireland has plumbed to these depths? The sub heading – “Human-rights monitor understood halal food would be available, but it was ‘not specified in the flight brief’” is even more unintentionally ridiculous. Is this why human rights monitors are employed? To check for proscribed pork? If only we natives had such granular advocacy.
In fairness to the reporter, Kitty Holland, it’s likely that a sub-editor wrote the heading but the first line of the piece makes it clear that this particular seasoned journalist seems to feel the sausage serving was a Major Issue of Concern and a Possible Breach of Human Rights.
Catering on deportation flights was changed after pork sausages were included as part of an Irish breakfast served on a forced return flight to Pakistan, according to a human-rights monitoring report.
Well, call me cold-hearted, but is that finding worthy of a headline? Then again, the story was the most-read in the Irish Times, though maybe for comedic value, or for sheer curiosity in the absurdity of what some media platforms clearly believe is a shameful processed meat inclusion. Or maybe The Irish Times actually understands its readers very well and knows that evidence of the subconscious racism ever-festering in Irish society is as catnip to such folks. Clickbait for the gated-community dwellers is the feeling of superiority one achieves at knowing that one is infinitely more tolerant, superior and virtuous than the Irish proles who instead of working for an enlightened NGO are preparing non-human-rights-complaint breakfasts for deportees. From Kitty Holland’s report:
The first chartered deportation flight, transporting 24 men to the country, which has a majority Muslim population, took place on September 23rd, 2025. A human-rights monitor travelled on board along with gardaí, a doctor and an interpreter.
A monitor is appointed by the Department of Justice for each deportation flight to report on the operation, including treatment of returnees and use of restraint, and to make recommendations or note exceptionally good practice, The Irish Times, who obtained the subsequent monitoring reports, explains.
Their report did acknowledge that it seemed the monitors found that “overall” the operations were conducted humanely and with respect for “the rights and dignity of the returnees”. But in case we thought we could breathe easy, the killer punch revealed:
On the September 23rd flight, Garda feedback about the two meals served was that “the quality of the food provided was of a lower standard than expected and that the serving of pork sausages as part of a full Irish breakfast was inappropriate”. The monitor understood halal food would be available, but it was “not specified in the flight brief”.
Are we honestly meant to care? If people don’t want to eat sausages – and Muslims are forbidden to eat pork – then no-one is forcing anyone to consume them. No-one will starve for the lack of suitable sausage in a full Irish breakfast – one provided without charge, by the way, along with everything else.
HIGH RISK
We’re in the second half of the news report before we learn that two of the men on the flight “were assessed as high risk, one because of previous offending and the other because of behaviour in prison.”
“A number of gardaí were assigned to each deportee.” In addition, we learn that: “One of the men was restrained on the ground and handcuffed before being carried on to the plane by gardaí. The monitor said they “heard sounds of a struggle” as a man was being taken from a van to board. A “soft mat” was brought to the vehicle “and almost immediately the returnee was removed from the van and placed on the mat, face up, lying on his back … restrained by a number of gardaí”.”
It’s fair to say, then, that the Gardaí had their work cut out. The cost and the logistics involved in deporting people who have been living in Ireland – often on false pretences, sometimes racking up convictions – is difficult enough without acting as if a slip-up over the sausages is a major controversy.
To be honest, apart from much of the ridicule online, the pork sausage story wouldn’t be worth writing about either except for what it reveals about the mindset of the Irish media – and something else altogether more important: what that mindset has led to in terms of being wilfully naïve and blind about the leeway given to asylum claimants and the tales they can spin.
Kitty Holland also had a report in The Irish Times yesterday, but this one was about something far more serious – the horrific, frenzied, deadly attack on the 17-year-old Ukrainian refugee Vadym Davydenko, who was killed while in the care of the state, of Tusla, in a place where he was supposed to be safe.
Reporting from an age inquiry being undertaken by Tusla at Dublin District Court in order to determine the actual age of the Somalian national accused of murdering Davydenko, Holland noted that a detective sergeant giving evidence to the court he “categorically” believes the Somalian – who has not been named – was an adult at the time of the alleged murder.
Det Sgt Mark Quill said that “the young person’s fingerprints matched those provided by an individual of the same name at two locations in Italy in February and June 2023”.
A date of birth of May 8th, 2007, was provided by this person in Lampedusa, and of August 5th, 2006 in Bologna, said Quill, according to Holland’s report.
Elizabeth Dobbs of the IPO said that when the Somalian male – who had spent about 14 months in the UK – presented himself at the International Protection Office on July 22nd, 2025, he was assisted in making his application by a Somali interpreter, Khadar Dahir. The interpreter helped the accused to fill in an unaccompanied minor form – and the Somalian applicant said his date of birth was June 20th, 2006, which would have made him 19 at the time of application.
“Some time passed … he approached me after a few minutes … He told me he provided an incorrect date and he needed to correct it,” the interpreter said.
Dobbs said she amended the date to June 20th, 2008, and then walked the individual to Tusla offices nearby. A Tusla eligibility assessment conducted a month later deemed him to be a child.
On October 20th, 2025, Quill received an email from an individual in Ethiopia purporting to be the young person’s brother, who “wanted to help” with the investigation.
Having verified this person’s identity, he asked for the young person’s birth certificate. Documentation provided indicated the accused was born on October 8th, 2006.
“This made him 19 … I discussed the general background of the family and the accused. He confirmed, yes, he was 19 years of age,” said Quill.
In January, however, he received a further email from the same address with a birth certificate showing the date of birth as Oct 8th, 2008. “He apologised and said the previous one was an error and this was in fact the correct one,” Quill added.
So, presented with a person offering contradictory evidence, the IPO chose to simply believe him and then place him in with vulnerable minors. Then when the asylum applicant’s own family confirm he is not a minor, leeway is again given. – no action seemingly even taken for 3 months. A follow-up email is taken at face-value, even though at this stage 4 different dates of birth have been given, and a person now accused of murder is allowed to remain in accommodation with actual minors.
NOT HAPPENING BY ACCIDENT
It is evident that the man turned up without identifying documentation, and was let in anyway even though he was clearly switching dates of births to suit the situation.
Tens of thousands of people have been allowed to enter this country and claim asylum even though they had no identification. The state is so hidebound by a terror of appearing racist or unwelcoming that we are endangering actually vulnerable people by allowing literally hordes of imposters to come and live amongst us.
It’s the suicidal empathy I wrote about previously, the frankly insane level of insistence that we must throw all caution to the wind in regard to migrants, and asylum seekers especially. We are giving credence to huge numbers of imposters and often wilfully placing our own people in danger.
At the Somalian accused’s age inquiry, Judge Conor Fottrell said it was “highly unusual” that Tusla had continued to keep the alleged murderer in their care – seeking 3 extensions to care orders – even though it had come to the view “10 or 12 weeks ago” that he was not a minor.
But Holland wasn’t finished reporting on the inquiry, and today has a piece which tells us that “harrowing details of the journey to Ireland undertaken by a young asylum seeker accused of murdering a Ukrainian teenager in Tusla accommodation last year were heard in Dublin District Court on Thursday.”
The sympathetic tone is all too evident. Are we meant to feel sympathy for someone who has already shown himself to be economical with the truth? This is the sort of media reporting that has shaped the reckless and harmful narrative around immigration – and that has led to some horrific outcomes. Yet Holland is the same reporter who accused Ryan Casey, Ashling Murphy’s beloved boyfriend, of saying words that were “unhelpful” and amounting to “incitement to hatred” when he mourned not just the love of his life, murdered by a Slovakian immigrant, but the vanishing sense of safety in the country.
The Great Pork Sausage Horror might be as amusing as it is ridiculous, but there is nothing funny in the absolute gaslighting of the Irish people on the real and present danger presented by the reckless naivety around immigration.