Uisce Éireann is to submit a Strategic Infrastructure Development planning application, alongside a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) application, to An Coimisiún Pleanála for the Water Supply Project Eastern and Midlands Region, described as the largest-ever water project in Irish history.
What does the project propose? Uisce Éireann plans to abstract water from Parteen Basin (Lower River Shannon), treat it near Birdhill, Co Tipperary, and pipe treated water about 170km through counties Tipperary, Offaly and Kildare to a new termination reservoir at Peamount, Co Dublin, connecting into the Greater Dublin Area network.
How much water would be taken? Uisce Éireann says the scheme would abstract a maximum of 2% of the average/long-term average flow at Parteen Basin.
Why is it being pursued? Uisce Éireann says the Eastern & Midlands region is over-reliant on a single source (the River Liffey system) and that population/economic growth and climate pressures will increase demand; it says a new source is needed for resilience.
What is the cost and timeline? Subject to planning, Uisce Éireann proposes construction starting in 2028, completing within five years, with an estimated budget of €4.58bn–€5.96bn and more than 1,000 direct jobs at peak construction.
How many landowners are affected? Reporting on the scheme states the underground pipeline would cross lands belonging to about 500 owners.
What are objectors saying? 1) Environmental impact on the Shannon / Natura 2000 protections. A key objection is potential ecological impact on the Shannon system. Parteen Basin is within the Lower River Shannon SAC (site code 002165), and critics argue abstraction/infrastructure must be proven not to adversely affect protected habitats/species.
2)“Fix the leaks first”. Opponents argue Dublin’s deficit should be tackled primarily through leakage reduction and network upgrades. Uisce Éireann’s own figures state about 37% of treated water is lost through leaks nationally. (Analysis has cited 37% nationally and 33% in the Greater Dublin Area lost to leaks.)
3)Demand and climate assumptions. Some stakeholders have challenged the robustness and horizon of demand forecasts,raising issues such as planning beyond 2050, climate impacts and high-demand users (including data centres and large energy users), particularly during drought.
4) Cost escalation and value-for-money. Objectors highlight the multibillion price tag (often described as “about €6bn”) and warn of further escalation; reporting has referenced a worst-case risk scenario exceeding €10bn in official correspondence.
5) Land access, CPO concerns, disruption and compensation/tax. Landowner objections include disruption during construction, long-term land constraints, and concerns about compensation treatment (including tax/VAT implications).
What is Uisce Éireann’s response ?
It says the abstraction would be capped at 2% of Parteen Basin flows and that the application includes an EIAR and Natura Impact Statement. It says leakage reduction is part of the solution, but that a new source is still required for resilience. It points to landowner liaison and a negotiated voluntary wayleave/land package agreed with farming bodies.
What happens next ? Uisce Éireann says planning notices run from 12 December 2025 and planning documents will be available from 19 December 2025 once lodged. The project page states submissions/observations to An Coimisiún Pleanála may be made from January 6th 2026 until February 25th 2026 at 5.30pm.
Fraudsters are becoming more sophisticated year on year, and scams are increasingly difficult to spot. AIB is urging customers and the wider public to stay vigilant by knowing the warning signs and taking a moment to verify unexpected messages, calls and offers.
AIB’s Financial Crime Prevention team has outlined the six most common fraud and scam types observed during 2025, along with practical tips to help people protect themselves.
The six top fraud scams seen in 2025. 1) Smishing — text message fraud. Fraudsters send convincing texts claiming to be from banks, delivery firms or government agencies, urging you to click a link, call a number, or share security codes. Tip:Never click links or call numbers in unexpected texts. Contact the organisation directly using trusted contact details.
2) Safe account scams. Scammers pose as bank staff and claim your account is compromised, pressuring you to move funds to a “safe” account that they control. Tip: AIB will never ask you to move your money for security reasons. Hang up immediately.
3) Investment scams. Fraudsters promise high returns to lure victims into fake schemes, often involving cryptocurrency, bonds or precious metals. Tip: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Seek independent financial advice before investing.
4) Romance scams. Scammers create fake online identities to build emotional relationships, then ask for money or personal information. Tip: Never send money or gifts to someone you haven’t met in person.
5) Money mule recruitment. Criminals recruit people to move stolen funds through their accounts, often marketed as “easy money” jobs. Tip: Never agree to transfer money for someone else or allow anyone to use your bank account — this is illegal.
6) Shopping scams. Fraudsters create cloned websites or social media “shops” offering goods that don’t exist. Tip: Stick to platforms you trust, check independent reviews, and ask: is the price too good to be true?
AIB help. If you think you’ve been scammed, contact AIB immediately on the 24/7 fraud reporting line: 1800 24 22 27(or +353 1 771 5639 from outside Ireland). You can also find further guidance and contact options in the AIB Security Centre.
Security reminder. Unfortunately, some fraudsters send emails pretending to be from AIB. Please remember: AIB willnever ask you to provide your Personal Access Code (PAC) by email or via links in an email. AIB will never ask for Code Card or AIB Card Reader codes by email or via links in an email. AIB will never ask you to provide debit or credit card details by email or via links in an email.
Treat unsolicited requests for money, codes or personal information as a red flag – Wait a Sec, Double Check.
Tipperary parking shake-up to go to consultation in early 2026, with Thurles calls growing to scrap charges.
A countywide overhaul of parking charges and permits across Tipperary’s nine pay-parking towns is due to go to public consultation in early 2026, after councillors examined proposals at a series of workshops aimed at “harmonising” how parking is managed from town to town.
The characterisation of Thurles town centre as “just a drive through area” reflects ongoing public concerns about traffic congestion and the impact of traffic management schemes on the town’s future vitality.
The nine towns currently within the Council’s eParking/pay-parking system are Thurles, Cahir, Carrick-on-Suir, Cashel, Clonmel, Nenagh, Roscrea, Templemore and Tipperary Town.
What’s in the proposals (as currently outlined)? Three-tier classification: the nine towns would be grouped into Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3, with a different pricing structure depending on classification. First 20 minutes free: the plan would introduce a formal 20-minute free-parking period in each town when implemented (reported for September 2026). Charging hours: parking charges are proposed to apply 8.30am–6.30pm, every day except Sunday. Permit overhaul: reforms are proposed for the full range of permits, including categories such as residential and visitor permits, alongside other permit types. Off-street incentives and local “return” of revenue: the outline includes lower charges for off-street parking and a new approach to how parking income is used locally (with towns retaining a share of additional revenue above an agreed baseline). Submissions urged: the public are being encouraged to make submissions, seeking calls for one hour duration in free parking, rather than 20 minutes.
Why Thurles is central to the debate.
Despite Tipperary County Council initiatives framed as boosting Thurles town-centre trade and footfall (including measures such as time-limited free parking promotions), local retailers have long argued the centre cannot compete with shopping centres offering easier/free parking. They say that, following recent town-centre parking changes and the loss/uncertainty around key capacity, shopper activity has increasingly gravitated towards Thurles Shopping Centre and LIDL on Slievenamon Road, to the detriment of town-centre shops, because sufficient convenient parking has not been maintained with recent upgrading.
In Thurles, the conversation is being shaped by a series of recent town-centre parking and traffic changes, including:
A push to increase short-stay turnover in central areas, following concerns that all-day parking by workers was squeezing out shoppers.
Ongoing controversy around plans linked to Liberty Square, where parking spaces have been a recurring flashpoint.
The introduction of updated local rules under Thurles Municipal District Parking Bye-Laws 2025, adopted by elected members and brought into effect in April 2025.
Pressure on supply from the loss/closure of key town-centre parking, including the Munster Hotel car park closure, Market Area and The Source closures, alongside other long-term reductions referenced locally (reported as over 100 spaces).
“Abolish charges altogether” – the emerging Thurles position. Against that backdrop, the argument being made by some in Thurles is straightforward: because the town centre has already absorbed significant disruption and a tightening of parking availability, parking charges should be abolished altogether rather than “rebalanced.” There is precedent for this stance in the Liberty Square context, with calls previously made for parking charges to be suspended in Thurles during major works to help protect footfall.
What happens next ? The Council is expected to publish consultation details in early 2026, allowing residents, traders and commuters to lodge submissions on:
the tiering model,
the free-parking period,
charging hours and enforcement,
permit eligibility and pricing,
how parking income should be reinvested locally.
Tipperary County Council already uses its online portal to run formal public consultations on matters of upgrading and parking bye-law proposals, however, the petty exercise of same authority, by minor officials is perceived only as a “tick box” exercise, rather than a meaningful tool for future public consultative policy development.
Alleged School Bus Tender Collusion Case Hears Claims of ‘Loaded Dice’ in Tipperary and Surrounding Counties.
The Central Criminal Court has heard allegations that five school bus operators attempted to “load the dice” in their favour by distorting competition in the tender process for school transport services across five counties.
Five Tipperary men are being prosecuted by the Competition Authority in connection with the provision of school transport services. All five deny the charges.
The accused are: Mr Andrew Walsh aged 62, Derrymore, Roscrea, Co. Tipperary. Mr Raymond Heney aged 54, Camas, Cashel, Co. Tipperary. Mr Noel Browne aged 77, Bansha, Co. Tipperary. Mr Larry Hickey aged 73, Ardmayle, Cashel, Co. Tipperary. Mr Anthony Flynn aged 51, Golden Road, Cashel, Co. Tipperary.
Each man faces a single charge under the Competition Act 2002. It is alleged that, between 1st November 2014 and 31st December 2016, they engaged in a concerted practice which had as its object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition in trade in the provision of school transport services.
The trial has heard that all of the accused were involved in bidding for tenders to provide school bus routes during the period in question. It is alleged that, rather than competing independently, the men colluded in how they would bid.
The jury was told that one of the accused arranged meetings with other bus operators, ostensibly to assist with administrative processes. At these meetings, it is alleged that operators discussed the allocation and pricing of school bus routes and agreed to bid for tenders in a coordinated manner.
Counsel for the prosecution, Dominic McGinn SC, said that parties in a tender process cannot lawfully discuss who is bidding for what, or at what price. He told the jury that there was a “degree of coordination” between the parties so that tender prices would end up higher than they would be in a genuinely competitive process.
Mr McGinn explained that competition law exists to protect consumers and taxpayers by ensuring value for money and preventing manipulation of markets. He told the jury that: “Agreements or understandings not to charge below a certain amount, amounted to price fixing and provided no benefit to consumers. Market sharing”, where competitors agree among themselves to allocate specific areas or routes so that there is effectively only one provider, is also prohibited. Any manipulation of that or distortion of that is unfair to us,” he said, noting that, as this case concerns public contracts, the people ultimately affected are taxpayers.
Mr McGinn said the alleged conduct did not require a formal written agreement, but involved collusion, an exchange of information and coordination that led to “the disappearance of competition” in the relevant tenders.
He told the jury that the case was not about the importance of school transport for children in Tipperary, nor about the fact that the accused men are approaching retirement and are alleged to have committed the offences late in their careers. Rather, he said, the case concerns whether the five men, and possibly others, attempted to “load the dice” to distort competition in the school transport market.
All five accused have pleaded not guilty. The trial continues today, Thursday, before Mr Justice David Keane and a jury of seven men and four women.
Irish, Spanish, Dutch and Slovenian public broadcasters withdraw from Eurovision Song Contest 2026, joining widespread condemnation of violence against journalists.
Four major public-service broadcasters, RTÉ (Ireland), RTVE (Spain), AVROTROS (Netherlands), and RTVSLO (Slovenia), all have announced they will not participate in or broadcast the Eurovision Song Contest 2026, following the decision by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) to allow participation of Israel.
Simultaneously, mounting concerns about the safety and dignity of journalists reporting from Gaza, including contested claims by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and strong criticism from international press-freedom organisations, further underscore the gravity of the situation.
Broadcasters — Statements of Principle. RTÉ (Ireland): RTÉ has described continuing to broadcast or participate under these circumstances as “unconscionable,” citing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and targeted attacks on journalists and civilians.
AVROTROS(Netherlands), RTVE(Spain), RTVSLO(Slovenia): These broadcasters have similarly cited ethical considerations and concerns about legitimacy and fairness in announcing their withdrawal from Eurovision 2026.
Journalists in Gaza – Context & Contested Claims. On 24 March 2025, two Palestinian journalists, Hossam Shabat and Mohammed Mansour, were killed in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes. The IDF later claimed they were operatives of militant groups (Hamas and Islamic Jihad), asserting Shabat had served as a “sniper” for a Hamas battalion. Press-freedom organisations, including Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), have rejected these claims.
The public funding package for RTÉ amounts to about €725 million over three years, drawn from both TV-licence fees and direct Exchequer support.
The funding model for RTÉ was meant to ensure stability and allow RTÉ to deliver “public service programming and content across television, radio and online services.” Critics might say that Eurovision is (or should be) an entertainment / cultural event, not a political theatre. They may argue taxpayers fund RTÉ, so it can deliver neutral public-service output, not pick international political sides when it comes to entertainment contests.
There remain the risk of alienating parts of the public and undermining “public service” trust. In a diverse society, taxpayers hold a range of views. If RTÉ uses public money to take a politically or ethically loaded position, those who disagree (or who believe Eurovision should remain apolitical fun) may feel their money is being used in ways they don’t agree with. That could erode trust in RTÉ’s neutrality.
Potential precedent creates a slippery slope, when politicising cultural events. If RTÉ withdraws from Eurovision on the basis of foreign policy or humanitarian concerns, what stops future withdrawals or boycotts of other cultural events, when public opinion becomes divided?
Using public money to make those decisions could become contentious. The bailout was, in part, meant to restore RTÉ’s viability, not fund activism. As RTÉ itself argued, the multi-annual funding is “…not a reward for the series of mistakes the organisation has made.” Same funding was pitched as a way to stabilise the broadcaster financially, not to empower political moralising.
In short:Public subsidy doesn’t necessarily mean public mandate for every political stance. Many could argue that Eurovision is outside the remit of core “public service” obligations.
Public opinion in Ireland is likely divided, some will support RTÉ’s stand, others will feel their TV licence money should be used impartially or that Eurovision should remain separate from geopolitics. The withdrawal risks politicising what many see as a cultural, apolitical event, and may alienate those who would prefer RTÉ to remain neutral.
Anyway, one thing that everyone will surely agree; RTE’s TV quality and content has greatly declined.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Recent Comments