If anyone has been missing my voice I appeared on the new Gript livestream, coming to you every week, alongside my colleague Fatima Gunning.
Gary
“Londoners told not to have barbecues in case they cause wildfires”
First, how do you cause a wildfire in central London, exactly? Is Hyde Park really at risk of going up in flames?
Second, this is just another example of the universal rule, isn’t it? Governments in the west spend more time lecturing their own citizens than they do in improving the lives of their own citizens. It’s a theme I’ve written about a lot over the years, and I must return to it.
The European Commission has acknowledged that grant money disbursed through its flagship environmental programme, LIFE, was, in a number of cases, used by NGOs to engage in “specific advocacy actions and undue lobbying activities.” The admission, contained in an official Commission statement on the 2025 – 2027 LIFE Programme, follows repeated pressure from right-wing parties within the European Parliament to investigate how taxpayer funds were being deployed under the scheme.
LIFE, originally established in 1992 and reauthorised in 2021, serves as the EU’s primary funding instrument for environmental, climate, and energy-related objectives. It supports a range of actors including civil society organisations, local authorities, research foundations, and private enterprises in EU member states. Operating grants under LIFE are awarded to non-governmental organisations to support, among other things, governance, communication, and “stakeholder involvement” in environmental and climate policy.
According to the Commission’s new statement, these funds have in some instances been misapplied:
“The Commission has recognised that in some cases work programmes submitted by the NGOs and annexed to the operating grant agreements contained specific advocacy actions and undue lobbying activities.”
This is the first time the Commission has admitted such misuse in formal language, and it is now moving to introduce additional safeguards.
The Commission stated that existing guidance bars beneficiaries from including “activities that should not be included when receiving funding as part of policy and legislation development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement.” These activities include “lobbying that targets specific policies or MEPs.”
The Commission claims to have tightened procedures around grant-making. The 2025 – 2027 multiannual work programme will, it says, include new protections to prevent operating grants from requiring “specific and detailed activities that directly target Union institutions or their staff or members.” In parallel, the Commission is reviewing transparency arrangements related to EU grant recipients and their obligations under the EU transparency register.
Members of the LIFE evaluation committee will also face stricter scrutiny. All evaluators are now required to sign declarations confirming the absence of conflicts of interest before assessing any proposals. The EU agency in charge of administering LIFE funds, CINEA, will additionally “review the selection procedure for members of the LIFE evaluation committee” to bolster transparency.
The Commission stated it is working closely with the European Court of Auditors, which is preparing final recommendations on how to improve oversight and transparency in NGO funding.
The EPP Group, which had raised concerns over NGO misuse of EU funds, characterised the Commission’s statement as a vindication of its position. Peter Liese, the group’s environmental spokesman, said:
“We strongly support the LIFE programme and recognise the very important role of NGOs. However, there have been clear instances of misconduct by some individual Commission officials and some NGOs. We therefore welcome the European Commission’s statement acknowledging the issue of undue influence.”
Sander Smit, MEP, was more explicit:
“The Commission has finally admitted that, ‘in some cases, the work programmes submitted by NGOs and annexed to the operating grant agreements contained specific advocacy actions and undue lobbying activities.’ Today’s admission confirms and validates the EPP Group’s concerns about these undue lobbying practices.”
The group has pressed the Commission to prohibit grant-funded NGOs from targeting MEPs and EU institutions with lobbying campaigns, and the Commission now appears to have agreed – at least in principle.
It is unclear from the Commission’s statement which NGOs were involved in the misuse of funds, or how widespread the issue may be. No names were disclosed, and no mention was made of disciplinary measures or potential recovery of funds.
The LIFE programme has been one of the largest and most politically sensitive channels of funding for climate and environmental NGOs in Europe. Its annual budget for 2021 – 2027 stands at approximately €5.4 billion. While most grants are awarded competitively and project-based, operating grants to civil society groups, especially those with explicit policy aims, have drawn increased scrutiny from MEPs, particularly over issues of transparency, political neutrality, and accountability.
Despite the new commitments, no external review has yet been published detailing the scope of lobbying activities undertaken with Commission funding. Nor has the Commission clarified whether any of the organisations involved remain eligible for further LIFE support under the 2025 – 2027 programme.
For organisations critical of EU climate and environmental policy, alongside the broader question of public funding of NGOs, the revelations are likely to reinforce calls for more rigorous audits and stricter conditions on funding. For NGOs, the political fallout may result in new reporting obligations and constraints on policy-related advocacy.
Whether these measures will mark a lasting shift in EU policy or serve as a temporary concession to political pressure remains to be seen. But the precedent now exists: the European Commission has admitted that taxpayer money was used to finance lobbying against the very institutions distributing it.
Update – the growth in “Attempts/threats to murder, assaults, harassments and related offences” has been corrected – from 114% to 131%.
It has become awkward – bordering on unacceptable – to say that Dublin has become more dangerous in recent years. But that hasn’t stopped a litany of complaints about growing criminal behaviour in the city, ranging from assaults to the pervasive smell of weed in certain parts of the city.
Even defenders of the city tend to acknowledge that the public feels crime has worsened. But they argue this is an inaccurate image – whipped up by media distortion, driven by population growth (which increases absolute crime counts while leaving per capita rates stable), and refuted by selected statistics – chiefly the number of murders, or even worse the homicide numbers – meant to demonstrate that the public are simply wrong.
Yet while defences of the status quo are often confident, their claims are rarely grounded in data beyond the occasional usage of homicide statistics as ‘proof’ that they’re right.
So what’s actually happening?
All of the below statistics, unless otherwise stated, for reasons I will explain in the appropriate section, use 3 year averages, 2003-2005 and 2022-2024. So when the piece says crime rates, for whatever crime, have increased or decreased by whatever between 2003 to 2024 you should understand that that refers to a comparison of the 3 year averages rather than just the named year.
It is true that the total number of recorded crimes in Dublin has fallen over the past two decades, by approximately 7.5%.
But this overall decline masks sharp increases in some of the most visible and civically damaging categories of criminal behaviour – assaults, drug possession, drug dealing, sexual offences, rape, fraud, street level harassment, and shop theft, amongst others.
Consider just one consolidated measure – the offence category “Attempts/threats to murder, assaults, harassments and related offences.” Recorded incidents of that category increased by 131% between 2003 and 2024. That rise encompasses a wide range of violent or threatening incidents, as is obvious from its name, and reflects a broader deterioration in the categories of crime that most affect everyday public life. In 2024, Garda data for the Dublin Metropolitan Region recorded over 8,500 incidents within this category. – in 2003 that figure was 3,685.
As An Garda Síochána noted in response to a query from Gript, “It is evident that Ireland in 2025 is a very different society from that at the turn of the century.”
In that same response, AGS emphasised that, “Ireland, as a comparison to international trends, is a safe modern society” and cited Ireland’s second-place ranking on the Global Peace Index and its position as the 13th safest country in the world under the category of ‘Societal Safety and Security.’
That is correct. Ireland appears to be an extremely safe country by international standards, and Dublin remains a much safer city than many comparable capitals.
But the relevant comparison is not Dublin versus the world. It is Dublin, now, versus Dublin, then. And by that standard, the most pertinent fact is this: the capital is substantially more dangerous, across a host of categories, than it was 20 years ago.
Why Is There So Much Debate About Whether Crime Is Increasing in Dublin?
Firstly because, like seemingly everything else, the issue is now wrapped up in the immigration debate. Much of the recent population increase has been driven by inward migration, and if the number of crimes is rising, some argue, that provides statistical ammunition for reducing it. That has led to a situation in which one faction wants the data to serve as an indictment of immigration policy, and another wants to ensure it cannot be used for that purpose. This dynamic incentivises distortion on both sides and helps explain why even basic questions – such as whether crime is rising or falling – are now treated as political claims.
Part of the reason the public debate is so fractured is that the statistics themselves are limited. All crime data in Ireland is ultimately filtered through the recording practices of An Garda Síochána. Those practices can and do change over time, through the introduction of new detection technologies, legislative changes, or as a result of shifting organisational priorities. Gardaí may, for instance, direct more attention to drug offences, cybercrime, or domestic violence in some periods than others, driving apparent increases or decreases that are partly artefacts of focus and enforcement. It is not always obvious which is which.
That flexibility, and Ireland’s relatively low levels of certain crimes, makes it extremely easy to present the numbers in a way that bolsters a preferred position. Choose a year with unusually high crime figures – say, the peak of a gangland feud or recession-era burglary wave – and anything that comes after can be made to look like an improvement. Choose a year with a low figure, and the opposite can be shown. This is how both sides end up pointing to “the data” while drawing completely opposite conclusions.
Given that most arguments about crime are now conducted through headline figures and social media infographics, it is fair to assume that many of the people making these arguments don’t even realise they’re using cherry-picked data. The statistics are sufficiently malleable that a motivated person can reach almost any conclusion they like without needing to lie outright.
So how can I make claims with confidence?
Rather than personally picking a particular year to anchor an analysis the data used in this piece comes directly from the Central Statistics Office’s recorded crime database for the Dublin Metropolitan Region for the period 2003-2024. It has been analysed in two distinct ways.
The first compares the average number of incidents in the first three years of the database – 2003 to 2005 – against the final three years available – 2022 to 2024. That gives a clear picture of how crime in the early 2000s compares to crime in the early 2020s. The second method takes the overall average across the entire 21-year period and compares it to the average for the most recent three years. That shows how current conditions stack up against the long-run baseline.
Both approaches are useful. And both, crucially, show the same thing: that crime in certain important categories has increased substantially.
The Shift in What Crime Looks Like
Some categories have fallen. Others have exploded. And not all crimes affect public life in the same way.
Dublin now records fewer murders, fewer road deaths, and significantly less burglary than it did two decades ago. The drop in burglaries, in particular, appears to reflect a genuine decline in a disruptive and often traumatising form of crime. Gardaí attribute it partly to operational focus and partly to changes in how offenders behave.
But the fall in murder rates is more ambiguous. Historically, Dublin’s murder rate has been heavily shaped by gangland activity.
AGS told Gript that, following the Regency Hotel shooting, “there was an upsurge in Organised Crime related murders, but increased and effective targeting by in particular the GNDOCB, supported by the resourcing and training of Emergency Response unit and Armed Support Units, and Garda interdiction in threat to life activities has intervened in a large number of threats to life conspiracies with arrested gangs/ individuals being charged for attempted murder and related charges.”
On that basis what has declined is not necessarily the baseline level of interpersonal violence, but the frequency of successful targeted killings between rival gangs.
Meanwhile, other offences associated with organised crime have risen sharply. Between 2003 and 2024, recorded incidents of “organisation of crime and conspiracy” increased by 290%, although the baseline was low. Drug-related intimidation, threats to kill, assaults, extortion, and coercion are all significantly more common now than they were twenty years ago. That shift points to an underlying trend: the low-level infrastructure of organised criminality has become more entrenched, even as its external profile has changed and AGS has dealt several blows to particular gangs.
The result is a different kind of threat landscape – less visible, more diffuse, and in some respects more volatile and chaotic.
This is the part of the trend that statistics often obscure. Not that nothing has improved. But what has worsened is, in many cases, harder to ignore.
What the Long-Term Trends Show
The long-term data, viewed from 2003 to 2024, shows extreme movement in both directions.
Some offences have declined sharply:
A significant portion of that overall decline comes from extremely sharp drops in offences such as Disorderly Conduct, Public Order and Other Social Code Offences, Damage to Property and to the Environment, and Criminal Damage (not arson). The fall is so substantial that I would suspect, but cannot prove, that it reflects a redirection of Garda resources toward higher-priority categories. These offences are discretionary in nature, often tied to visible street presence and enforcement bandwidth, and their collapse coincides with a period in which more serious threats—assault, drug intimidation, organised extortion—were sharply rising.
In 2008, for example, Gardaí logged over 21,000 Public Order offences. By 2024, that number had fallen to just 11,603—a drop of more than 44%.
Others, however, have exploded:
And many of these increases are precisely the kinds of crimes that shape public perceptions of safety: street-level harassment, threats, assaults, intimidation, and theft in open retail settings – which usually leads to additional security measures in shops and a visible reminder to citizens that crime is an everyday issue.
The overall trend is that while total reported crime is down, this masks a redistribution: away from property crimes and public order, and toward offences of interpersonal harm, coercion, and drug-related violence.
Interpreting the Variations
The Gardaí note several reasons for this. In their response, they pointed to the internationalisation of organised crime, the increased availability and consumption of illegal drugs, and the effects of technology and online access as factors that have fundamentally changed the policing environment. They wrote:
“The internationalisation of global crime networks impacts on every aspect of society from Organised Crime, Drug Trafficking, Economic Crimes, Cyber Crime, Online frauds and the proliferation and access to the internet makes policing a more complex environment.”
They specifically cited drug use as a key driver of crime, noting that Ireland ranks among the highest in Europe for cocaine and amphetamine use, and that Dublin appears in the top 20 European cities for levels of cocaine and MDMA in wastewater. This, they said, feeds directly into increases in assaults, intimidation, and gang-related threats to life.
They also noted that trends in certain offences reflect changes in enforcement and technology. For example, the dramatic rise in recorded instances of drug driving corresponds not only to higher usage but also to the introduction of Drug Wipe testing procedures and stronger post-COVID detection protocols. Similarly, a surge in blackmail and extortion offences is attributed in part to cyber-enabled crimes and Garda operational responses, including the DRIVE initiative against drug-related intimidation.
Other declines – such as the collapse in prostitution offences – are linked to legal changes, and a shift from street-level to indoor work. The fall in burglary and vehicle theft, Gardaí noted, reflects both operational focus and changes in offender behaviour.
They also described a cultural shift following COVID-19, noting that “many aspects of society [are] less tolerant, and more belligerent,” and that online exposure to violent content may be raising tolerance for real-world aggression, leading to a rise in assaults causing harm. The overall portrait is of a capital city shaped by increased complexity, heightened risks, and strategic adaptation by law enforcement.
Rape and Sexual Offences: The Problem of Disclosure
The rise in reported sexual offences is one of the more complex areas in the crime data. Between 2003 and 2024, recorded incidents of rape and sexual assault increased by 130%, and overall sexual offences by more than 140%.
An Garda Síochána, the Department of Justice, and a number of specialist NGOs have consistently suggested that this increase is likely due not to a rise in actual offending, but to a rise in what is known as the disclosure rate – the proportion of crimes, in this case sexual assaults and rapes, that are reported to Gardaí. The argument is that increased public focus on the issue, media coverage, and institutional reform have made it more likely that victims will come forward.
That explanation may well be true. But it is not provable. There is currently no reliable time-series data tracking changes in the disclosure rate, and no survey data that could provide a national estimate of its level across time. It is equally possible that reporting has stayed flat – or even declined – and that the rise in recorded offences reflects a real increase in incidence. One could point to the argument, which seems prevalent amongst young Irish women, or at least young Irish feminists, that going to the guards about sexual assault is just a way to be revictimized and that the system is entirely against you, as a point in that argument’s favour.
That is not to say this is what has happened. But it highlights a basic problem: without a stable and recurring methodology for measuring disclosure rates, claims about what is driving sexual offence figures are ultimately speculative. It would seem prudent for the Government to commission an annual, replicable study capable of producing reliable estimates both for the current year and in aggregate over time. That principle should apply not only to sexual offences, but to any category that depends heavily on public reporting – low-level assaults, robberies, intimidation, and other offences where detection is unlikely without the victim actively choosing to inform the Gardai that an offence has taken place.
Is the Rise in Crime Just Because of Population Growth?
The population has increased by over 20% since 2000. In County Dublin specifically, the population rose from 1.12 million in 2002 to over 1.45 million by 2022—an increase of nearly 30%. This figure necessarily exceeds that of the city itself, but is appropriate for assessing crime in the capital, as a large share of those living in the wider county spend considerable time in the city for work, education, or recreation, and are therefore both potential victims and perpetrators of crime within its limits.
It is worth mentioning that, despite the well reported issues with recruitment, the number of Gardai has somewhat kept pace with population growth, increasing from 12,017 in 2003 to 14,157 in 2014.
Are People Less Likely to Report Low-Level Crime?
If some crime categories are rising due to greater detection and reporting, there is also the possibility that others are falling because victims no longer report them. Anecdotally, there is widespread belief that people have become less likely to report low-level crime to Gardaí, either due to frustration, perceived inaction, or resignation.
It’s something we in Gript hear about regularly – members of the public choosing not to involve Gardaí because they believe nothing useful will come of it. That perception, whether accurate or not, shapes the true crime landscape as much as any policy or enforcement shift.
It raises an important methodological issue: the recorded crime rate is not the same as the crime rate. If public willingness to report declines in certain areas, it may obscure underlying problems rather than indicate genuine improvement.
The CSO, on occasion, carries out a Crime and Victimisation survey, which does look into the question of how likely people are to a) be victimised by criminals, and b) disclose particular crimes to AGS. Five of these surveys have been carried out since 2000 – 1998, 2003, 2006, 2010, 2015, and 2019.
Below are the results for the percentage of households, and people, who say they were the victim of certain crimes in the previous 12 months. For households the crimes covered were: burglary, and/or vandalism, theft of vehicles, theft from vehicles, and theft of bicycles. In relation to personal crime the crimes covered are: violent theft, non-violent theft, physical assault, and, from 2015, fraud.
Note: these are national statistics, not purely for Dublin.
| Type of Crime | 2019 | 2015 | 2010 | 2006 | 2003 |
| Household | 3.8% | 8% | 9% | 11% | 12% |
| Personal | 9.7% | 5% | 4% | 5% | 5% |
It should be noted the 2019 Personal victimisation rate includes fraud, at 4%, which was not included in earlier years. The 2019 Household victimisation rate being substantially lower than previous years is due to the survey splitting off the three theft offences from vandalism and burglary.
And below is the percentage of victims of crime who reported the crime to the guards, shown by the surveys.
| Disclosure rate | 2019 | 2015 | 2010 | 2006 | 2003 |
| Personal | 39% | 54% | 58% | 54% | 55% |
The fall in disclosure in the 2019 survey is partially due to the inclusion of fraud in the dataset, which began in 2015, but more driven by a substantial fall in the number of assaults which were being reported to Garda. In 2015 58% of assaults were being disclosed to AGS, having increased from 51% in 2003, but by 2019 the disclosure rate had dropped to 29%.
Of those who didn’t report the crime 35% said it was due to the incident not being serious enough, with 38% saying they didn’t report the crime as Gardai either would not, or could not, do anything about it.
The 2019 found Dublin had the highest victimisation rate in the country, at 13% -the highest rate outside Dublin was 9.1%. The 2019 survey also found Dublin had the highest number of people who reported feeling ‘a little unsafe’ or ‘very unsafe’ when walking around the area at night (28%). 40% of people in Dublin also stated that anti-social behaviour in the local area had negatively impacted on their quality of life.
Dublin is also historically the region with the highest level of property crimes.
Is the rise in certain crimes because of immigration?
Whilst this is an extremely common claim I have no idea if it’s correct. Nobody does. And anyone who claims to know is speculating because the data needed to know does not exist in Ireland.
An Garda Síochána does not routinely collect or publish data on the ethnicity of criminal suspects. In fact, Gardaí have made clear to Gript that they are not legally empowered to do so without a change to the governing legislation. Nor do they, as a matter of course, collect or publish information on the nationality of suspects – even though there is no legal barrier to doing so, and even though nationality data is recorded in certain individual cases. The result is that there is no reliable or publicly available dataset that would allow anyone to determine whether immigrants are more or less likely to commit crime than the native-born population.
This is not a small omission. Countries differ markedly in their rates and types of criminal offending. Some forms of crime – such as knife attacks, acid attacks, or particular types of sexual violence – are far more or less common in certain parts of the world. The argument that immigration from certain countries therefore may import, to some extent, the baseline criminal patterns of the source countries, seems like a logical and reasonable argument. But that argument cannot be tested in Ireland because the data does not exist.
The Irish Prison Service does publish information on the nationality of inmates. But that, too, is of limited use. First, it tells us nothing about the crime rate among any given population group unless we know how large that group is, something that is complicated in practice by residency status, undocumented migration, and dual citizenship. Second, “nationality” does not equate to “immigrant status,” let alone ethnicity or cultural background. A person born in Ireland may hold a non-Irish passport, and vice versa. Third, the prison population is a narrow and lagging indicator. It reflects convictions, not charges or incidents, and excludes the vast majority of criminal acts – most of which never lead to a custodial sentence.
In short, we do not know whether immigrants are disproportionately involved in crime in Dublin. Nor do Gardaí, the CSO, or the Department of Justice. Any argument that attempts to pin changes in crime levels – up or down – on immigration cannot be shown to be accurate. That does not mean it is wrong. But it cannot currently be proven.
It is worth noting that this data could fairly easily be gathered – if the Government wanted it to be collected – by simply instructing AGS, the courts, and the Irish Prison Service to record the Country of Birth of suspects.
This article is premium content
Get unlimited access to Gript
Support Gript and get exclusive content, full archives and an ad-free experience
Already a member? Sign in here
This article is premium content
Get unlimited access to Gript
Support Gript and get exclusive content, full archives and an ad-free experience
Already a member? Sign in here
Necessity is the mother of invention, the old saying has it, and we’re currently seeing that fact play out internationally and geopolitically. Countries are deciding in growing numbers that the status quo poorly served them and so one by one they’re abandoning it in favour of self-interest, behaving in ways long since left behind.
In that pithy manner unique to internet users, this trend has been summed up as “you can just do things”. Countries and leaders are perceived as just doing things when they see long-standing, critical problems that have typically been left unaddressed, and decide to implement obvious, but long-neglected solutions. The efficacy of those solutions is not guaranteed, but the decision to act is widely understood as being preferable to inaction.
A couple of examples. This week, Poland changed the law so as to temporarily suspend the right to apply for asylum for migrants arriving in the country via its eastern border with Belarus. This comes following years of pressure on that front, and a shifting make-up of the migrant population that’s mostly seen the women and children disappear, replaced by large groups of men that are frequently violent.
Indeed, last year a Polish soldier was killed after he was stabbed with a makeshift spear, a knife tied to the end of a stick, as he attempted to stop a group of these migrants trying to force their way across the border. Many more soldiers and border guards have been injured on the border since the crisis broke out in 2021, which has progressively led to the implementation of harsher measures.
That does not mean Poland has left its humanity behind; exemptions will still be made for genuinely vulnerable people, such as unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, and those in need of specialist healthcare. But nevertheless it has acknowledged that special circumstances require special solutions – and acknowledged by no less than Brussels’ man in the east, Donald Tusk and his centrist coalition. It was a popular move, the initial vote backed by an overwhelming majority of MPs.
Or turn to the show stealing the global spotlight: the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to “make America great again”. As we know, and to our great horror, tariffs are playing a large part in this, as Trump understands them to be a way not only to bring in revenue, but a means to return industry to the US. As the president said yesterday when discussing the upcoming pharmaceuticals tariff, “We’re going to be doing tariffs on pharmaceuticals in order to bring our pharmaceutical industry back.
“We don’t make anything here in terms of drugs, medical drugs, different types of drugs that you need, medicines,” he said.
This sense that it’s high time that manufacturing and industry (especially essential manufacturing and industry such as pharmaceuticals represent) return to your own shores is inextricably linked to the growing instability of the global theatre. The US is attempting to de-escalate with Russia because it has its sights fixed firmly on its perceived closest competitor, China, which as everyone knows is the world’s factory. The US cannot currently compete on that front, and whether he’s implementing the right measures or not, Trump acknowledges that and is attempting to address it. His first term and its tariff strategy didn’t provide conclusive evidence either way.
In a similarly bold vein, though, he’s apparently decided that Greenland is in America’s strategic interests and has shifted his speech to reflect that. He said this week that his administration must “let them know that we need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it”.
“We have to have the land because it’s not possible to properly defend a large section of this Earth — not just the US — without it. So we have to have it, and I think we will have it,” he said. A radical departure from the status quo of late, it must be said. The US Vice President and Second Lady are due to visit Greenland today, keeping the pressure on, despite international pleas. They are unashamedly acting in what they perceive to be their national interest.
There are more examples that could be cited, but the basic point is this: there are issues that have been worsening across the board for some time now, whether it be the strain continuous mass immigration is putting on national infrastructure and cohesion, or whether it be ongoing de-industrialisation, despite the frailties of global supply chains and partnerships being laid bare by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Some countries are acknowledging those realities and acting accordingly, whether or not it’s popular and whether or not those measures will ultimately be successful in preserving stability and security.
This dramatic new landscape only makes political paralysis and stagnation all the more puzzling, and we unfortunate citizens of these isles have both of those in abundance.
To wit, X was abuzz last night, as were headlines, with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s proclamation that “Ninja swords will be banned by this summer”.
“When we promise action we take it,” he wrote, and was absolutely ratioed for it. Because banning yet another type of blade is going to do nothing for Britain’s surging knife crime, and everyone knows it. This is demonstrable, given that the UK government has already banned multiple forms of knife.
Just last September, the British government banned “zombie knives” and machetes, which was apparently so ineffective that Keir Starmer posted in January this year that “Knife crime is at epidemic levels and is ruining lives across Britain”. Of course, the obvious solution – looking at who’s carrying out these crimes and the suitability of the punishment they receive – might raise some uncomfortable questions, so better just to ban a form of blade that next to nobody in the UK owns.
Or to take domestic matters, just under a week out from what one economic pundit has dubbed potentially “the worst day in Irish economic history since September 29 2008 and December 2010 (when bailout happened)”, the Dáil is still squabbling over speaking rights, the opposition having gritted their teeth and found a hill worth dying on, at long last. This is not to excuse Government, or their most valuable partner, Michael Lowry, who summed up precisely how enjoyable he finds the whole spectacle with his salute to Paul Murphy TD.
I cannot help but think that, inglorious as these proceedings currently appear, in the weeks and months after April 2, when Trump’s tariffs take effect – and the later, dread day when a pharmaceutical tariff is slapped on – the Leinster House circus will take on a positively incendiary appearance.
None of this should be read as a recommendation that a commitment to moral conduct and humanitarian impulse be abandoned in favour of purely cold, calculating self-preservation, but it absolutely is an exhortation to be a hell of a lot more vigilant, and a hell of a lot more decisive, than we’re currently being. Despite Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe’s insistence on Prime Time last night:
“The Minister for Finance has said he is ‘extremely concerned’ about the potential impact of proposed United States tariffs on pharmaceutical exports, warning they could deliver a major blow to Ireland’s economy.
Speaking on RTÉ’s Prime Time programme, Paschal Donohoe said the Government is preparing for ‘real and significant’ difficulties if US President Donald Trump follows through on threats to impose tariffs on drug imports, including those from Ireland.”
One cannot help but feel that it is akin to shifting deck chairs around on the Titanic at this stage, and that the conduct of ministers and TDs belie their professions of vigilance. If they were serious, we might expect to see similarly drastic measures to those being taken by bullish members of the international community. That could take a variety of forms, but the fact that business is proceeding as usual, if not worse than usual, implies that the severity of the situation has very much not hit home yet.
There are monsters amongst us, and there are others who support them. Yesterday, sympathisers with three men who were sentenced for the “cruel, cynical and depraved” rape of a woman crowded into a courtroom to shout out messages of comfort – and give a thumbs up, not to the victim, but to the degenerates who assaulted her.
Some of you might think the term monsters is an overstatement. I disagree. Sentencing the three men, Mr Justice Paul Burns said they had taken advantage of the vulnerability of an intoxicated young woman in a manner “devoid of any semblance of human decency”. If monstrous is defined as extreme wickedness then that fits the bill, in my opinion. How we treat people when they are most vulnerable says a lot about who we actually are. Dehumanising others is what monsters do.
The three men, Anthony Hickey, Fabio Vicente and Matin Zolfaghari (pictured below) were sentenced to between 14 and 16 years for their crimes – carried out six years ago when, as the judge noted, they were “mature” men, who subjected the victim to an “abhorrent series of sexual attacks”.
They went “far beyond humiliation” in their rape and sexual assault of the woman, and they were in “total denial of her inherent dignity as a human being”, the judge added.
Yet their supporters saw fit to crowd into the courtroom in large numbers, giving the thumbs up to rapists and claiming they were “very upset because those sentenced were “all innocent”. As the Irish Times reports:
After the court rose, a large number of supporters of the men entered the back of the courtroom, some shouting “I love you”, with others giving the thumbs up to the men.
When directed to leave by gardaí, a female voice said “we are all very upset right now, give us a minute”, while another female voice called out “they were over-sentenced, they are all innocent”.
The actions of the rapists’ supporters are all the more repulsive given the shocking, disturbing and depraved evidence uncovered by An Garda Síochána – evidence that the victim has been forced to relive and endure to bring these perpetrators to justice.
The men acted together, the judge found: it was a case of ”concerted and simultaneous sexual abuse by three men of a vulnerable woman” adding that it was truly shocking” that such “vile abuse” could happen to a woman on a night out in Dublin.
Hickey, a personal trainer, Vicente, a part-time stripper, and Zolfaghari, a restaurant director, have showed no remorse, the judge said. They made videos of their rape and sexual assault. One chilling message, in particular, showed that some of them seemed to find their victim’s attempt at refusal amusing.
An analysis of Hickey’s phone identified WhatsApp messages in which he asked Zolfaghari to send him a video. After Zolfaghari sent two clips which he had recorded on the night of August 31st, Hickey replied: “Listen to you laughing after she says ‘no’.”
While nothing is visible in either video, the woman is heard saying ‘no’ several times in a 30-second clip recorded in the car. A second video was recorded in the house.
The supporters who crowded into that courtroom today will doubtless be aware of this evidence. They must be aware that the videos made and shared by the men were key to the case made by the prosecution which led to all three being found guilty by a jury. How can they still claim that these rapists were “innocent”?
Common characteristics of rapists, experts say, include a lack of empathy, feelings of hostility towards women, and narcissism. The victim is dehumanised: and rapists often try to justify their actions, and to persuade others that the rape was actually consensual sex.
We’ve seen this claim made before – that we should believe it is “perfectly normal” for women to enjoy being treated like a piece of meat by multiple men in a night of group sex – and that this shouldn’t surprise or shock us in these more libidinous, less repressive times. Its sometimes how predators dress up and excuse their behaviour.
Only prudes, we’re also led to believe, would object to such unbridled fun on a night out – except that research has found that women who reported having a multiple-sexual-partner experience many, sometimes a majority, also reported being pressured, threatened or forced. The sexual revolution has definitely stoked a culture that is more aggressive and dangerous for women, one where – whether we like it or not – women need to be increasingly on their guard from predators.
Has that mainstreaming of what used to be considered uncommon male sexual behaviours – and they absolutely are preferences of men, as is much of what women are persuaded or forced to go along with under the pretence of sexual freedom – also led to a cultural shift where apologists for rapists, because that’s what those shouting in the courtroom yesterday are, are emboldened by relying on the porn-fueled supposition that woman are always ‘up for it all the time’, enjoy rough sex, and say no when they mean yes.
They should all be be ashamed of their disgusting behaviour, though shame, much like decency and restraint and respecting women, are doubtless all considered hopelessly antiquated virtues at this stage. At a previous hearing Justice Burns cleared the court of most of the men’s supporters as he didn’t want the victim or her family “feeling intimidated or overawed by the sheer number of people in the courtroom”.
During that previous sentence hearing, the woman said in her victim impact statement that the three men were “complete strangers” who “took advantage of me and used me and my body as if I was an object that they were entitled to”.
She spoke of suffering with anxiety, flashbacks and nightmares following the rapes – and said: “I know your faces now. And I will look at every single one of you when I say – this is your fault”.
“Every victim at one stage thinks it’s their fault. Why did I stay out?… Why could I not stay out to dance and get home safely?
“Because of you – you who waited and preyed and took advantage… You not only raped me, I found out during the trial you violated me in another way. You videoed raping me.
“You sent around these videos and laughed about me saying ‘no’. You laughed because you didn’t care, and you have shown no remorse from the second you entered into these courts.”
Yet, the supporters of the three men felt emboldened enough to shout out defiance of the jury’s decision and the judge’s sentences in court. Is that a reflection of a shifting culture, where rape can be excused away as men simply being out for a good time? Zolfaghari, who made the videos, told gardaí he made the recordings for a “laugh”.
Gang rape – not previously remotely common – seem to be increasingly appearing before the courts. Rape and sexual assault rates seem set on an inexorably upwards trend.
We need to push back. Anyone giving rapists the thumbs up should feel the public opprobrium they deserve. Monsters only exist because we allow them to.
This article is premium content
Get unlimited access to Gript
Support Gript and get exclusive content, full archives and an ad-free experience
Already a member? Sign in here
This article is premium content
Get unlimited access to Gript
Support Gript and get exclusive content, full archives and an ad-free experience
Already a member? Sign in here
A daily comment thread for subscribers to discuss whatever catches their fancy.
Also, if people are interested, the Government earlier this week released their implementation plans for the EU Migration and Asylum Pact. You can read it here.
Basic gist of it is that the state plans to take on €32M worth of new staff to deal with between 10-18,000 asylum seekers a year. They also plan to spend €875M on acquiring beds for those asylum seekers, and then €725M a year on running the facilities.
They’re hoping to lower processing time from 29 months, which costs €122,867 per applicant, to 9 months, at a cost of €49,692.
They’ll also be replacing the current appeals system.