Congratulations to Thurles Councillor Mr Jim Ryan, who once again used Tipp FM local radio, this morning, to highlight the deplorable condition of the River Suir, as it passes through Thurles town centre.
Concerns about this important local waterway have reportedly been raised repeatedly since approximately November 2013. Yet, after almost 13 years, residents are still waiting for the sustained maintenance, environmental protection and accountability that the river urgently requires.
River Suir, for years, remains totally blocked by a fallen tree, reed and other vegetation.
Photographs and the short video hereunder, recorded yesterday, once again provide further evidence of the current situation. Shopping trolleys, bottles, discarded clothing and other litter, remain clearly visible, both in the riverbed and around affected sections of the river bank, totallydevoid of litter bins.
Years of excessive vegetation, severely restricted water flow and apparently uncontrolled effluent entering the river, provide stark evidence of prolonged and inexcusable neglect.
Short video hereunder, taken yesterday showing conditions recorded along the River Suir, with no action having taken place whatsoever, since contacted by EPA.
Thurles.Info has forwarded communications about the river to Tipperary County Council. The Environmental Protection Agency has also requested a written response from the said Council, outlining any action already taken or planned. According to the latest published update, that response remains awaited.
Despite the EPA’s intervention and continuing public complaints, no visible attempt had been made, up to yesterday, to remove the abandoned trolleys, bottles, clothing or other accumulated waste shown in the accompanying footage. This is not merely an appearance issue. The River Suir is an important natural habitat, public amenity and part of Thurles’s identity. Local people are entitled to know who is responsible, what work will be undertaken and when it will begin. Councillor Mr Jim Ryan deserves credit for continuing to raise the matter.
What Thurles now needs is a prompt, transparent and effective response from the responsible authorities.
We learned last week that the Data Protection Commission (DPC) has fined the HSE €645,000, following serious failures in the care of confidential medical records.
The investigation began after two data breaches were reported in 2023. People had gained unauthorised access to paper medical records stored in the disused St Loman’s psychiatric hospital in Mullingar and St Conal’s Hospital in Letterkenny. Videos of the records were subsequently posted on social media.
When inspectors examined 12 HSE storage sites, they found records in appalling conditions. Documents were stored in disused bathrooms, cubicles, a shipping container inside a turf shed and derelict buildings. Some records were damaged by mould, water, rubble and animal droppings. The DPC also found that records had been retained longer than necessary and that some breaches had not been reported promptly to either the regulator or the people/patients affected.
The DPC imposed four fines totalling €645,000 and ordered the HSE to audit its storage facilities, remove records from unsuitable locations and introduce a proper system for tracking and managing paper records. The HSE’s previous similar data-protection failures were treated as an aggravating factor.
But who will really pay this fine? The HSE is funded mainly with public money. Therefore, the €645,000 will not come from the pockets of the officials responsible. It will come from resources that could otherwise have been used for patients, staff and health services. Once the fine has been confirmed by a court and collected, the DPC must transfer the money to the Government’s Central Fund, namely the Irish Exchequer. It does not go to the patients whose records were mishandled, and it does not remain with the DPC. The result is that one taxpayer-funded public body pays another part of the State. The money leaves the HSE’s budget and returns to the general Exchequer.
The HSE will then find itself €645,000 short in its future dealings with patients and support services, unless it can absorb the loss elsewhere. If it seeks additional funding, that money will again have to come from the taxpayer. The HSE cannot simply demand the fine back, but future governments may provide it with increased funding through the normal budget process.
Is this not ridiculous? The HSE must certainly be held accountable for the disgraceful treatment of sensitive medical records. Strong corrective action, public accountability and consequences for those responsible are entirely justified. However, taking money from the health service, placing it in the Exchequer and potentially providing more taxpayers’ money to the HSE later looks like public money being moved in a circle.
Meanwhile, patients may face the real cost through reduced resources or delayed services, although they did nothing wrong. The people directly responsible may suffer no personal financial consequence, while taxpayers effectively pay the penalty.
The fine sends a public message, but it raises a serious question; is moving €645,000 of taxpayers’ money from one State account to another really the best way to hold a public body accountable?
Meaningful accountability should correct the failures without making patients and ordinary taxpayers pay for the same institutional mistakes again.
When Does Somebody Else’s Pollution Become Our Responsibility?
Since yesterday September 1st 2026, Ireland’s fixed, on-the-spot fine for littering has increased from €150 to €250. This includes rubbish thrown from cars; whether it is a cigarette butt, bottle, food container or takeaway wrapper.
But fines raise a bigger question: At what point does somebody else’s pollution become our responsibility, especially when it enters a local river or waterway?Responsibility begins with the person who discarded the waste. Irish law prohibits causing or permitting polluting matter to enter waterways. Local authorities can investigate pollution, require remedial action and prosecute offenders.
Suir Riverbed Thurles town centre, mainly caused by failure to provide a nearby litter bin.
However, responsibility cannot end with the individual. Many communities like Thurles town, point to too few conveniently located litter bins, or bins that are full or poorly maintained, in town centres, recreational areas and beside popular walking routes. Public-bin provision and maintenance are local-authority services, so councils also have a role in supplying suitable infrastructure where litter is regularly generated.
However, a lack of bins is never an excuse to throw rubbish from a car or throw it in or beside a river. If no bin is available, we must take our waste home. Nevertheless, enforcement works best when it is accompanied by adequate bins, regular collections, public education and convenient recycling facilities. Fining people without addressing obvious gaps in infrastructure tackles only part of the problem.
Once discarded, litter rarely remains where it falls. Rain washes roadside waste into drains, streams and rivers often promoted by Co. Councils. Currents carry it through neighbouring communities and towards lakes and the sea, where it can harm wildlife, obstruct waterways and leave the public paying for its removal. Ordinary residents are not legally responsible for another person’s offence. But once we see pollution threatening a shared waterway, we acquire a civic responsibility; report it, refuse to ignore it and support safe efforts to protect the area.
In the Republic of Ireland, litter, illegal dumping, overflowing public bins and local water pollution can be reported to the relevant city or county council. The EPA also recommends its “See It? Say It!” app, which sends photographs and location details to the appropriate authority.
The person who pollutes should pay. Councils must provide sensible disposal facilities and enforce the law. Communities should not be expected to continually clean up after repeat offenders, but silence allows the damage to travel downstream.
The litter may belong to somebody else, but the river belongs to all of us. Personal responsibility, proper infrastructure and effective enforcement must work together.
Most of Cabragh Road in Thurles was resurfaced over the past week, following the deterioration and collapse of sections of the road surface after water-service works were carried out some years ago.
Much of the new surface appears to have been finished to a good standard. However, several sections near homes and businesses; including the area entrance to O’Meara Oil, now appear to be incomplete and potentially hazardous.
As our photographs show, the newly laid asphalt ends in a rough, abrupt and raised edge beside an uneven pedestrian margin. Anyone walking out from town may suddenly encounter a section where the resurfacing covers only part of the available roadside space.
Pic: G. Willoughby.
This presents particular difficulties for:
► wheelchair and mobility-scooter users; ► parents pushing children in buggies; ► people using walking aids; ► older pedestrians and those with impaired balance; ► cyclists moving close to the road edge; and ► residents entering or leaving adjoining properties.
Small wheelchair castors or buggy wheels could catch against the raised lip or loose stone. A pedestrian attempting to avoid the uneven surface could also be forced closer to moving traffic.
Pic: G. Willoughby.
The unfinished edge may create further problems if it is not corrected promptly. Water could collect along the change in level instead of draining freely, increasing the risk of puddles, splashing and deterioration. Water entering an unsealed pavement edge can weaken it, while passing traffic may loosen the exposed aggregate and cause the asphalt to ravel or break away progressively.
The resulting loose stones could become an additional slipping or skidding hazard. Repeated vehicle loading may also widen the damaged edge, leaving potholes, crumbling margins and an even greater difference in level.
Pic: G. Willoughby.
Serious questions therefore arise: Why were these sections left at a different level? Was pedestrian and wheelchair access assessed before the work was accepted? Were drainage and connections to entrances properly examined? Has the resurfacing received a final inspection? Is the contractor expected to return and complete the margins?
Fresh road markings and a new running surface do not make a project complete if unsafe edges remain beside homes, businesses and pedestrian routes.
These locations should now be inspected urgently by Tipperary County Council, made safe without delay and brought to a properly finished, accessible and well-drained standard. The council provides an official service for reporting damaged roads and footpaths, including an online “Fix-it”facility, [which today same consultation portal, despite every attempt, refused access].
Which begs another question; Where have “Refresh Thurles” members vanished to? Note: Refresh Thurles members have failed to note that those working on this re-surfacing project, forgot to take their litter with them.
The public should not have to wait until somebody falls, a wheelchair becomes trapped or the newly laid surface begins to disintegrate before action is taken.
According to local radio, Mr Michael Lowry TD has rejected suggestions that the Garda Training College in Templemore is now under threat.
Mr Lowry says he secured a commitment during negotiations on the Programme for Government that Templemore would remain the primary national Garda training centre. He also says a recent review endorsed maximising Templemore’s capacity and prioritising investment there and also at an outreach facility in Tallaght. The Government previously denied making a deal with Mr Michael Lowry, however Mr Lowry nevertheless now says he secured a commitment on Templemore, during government-formation negotiations.
Templemore clearly remains Ireland’s principalGarda college and is receiving further investment. However, the wording “primary” does not mean “exclusive”.
The published Programme for Government commits to considering a second Garda training college and allowing trainees to complete parts of their training elsewhere. It does not guarantee that every existing course will remain in Templemore, Co. Tipperary. Mr Lowry’s stronger assurance appears to arise from government-formation negotiations, however no published agreement, letter or memorandum setting out its precise terms can be located.
Garda Training College, Templemore, Co. Tipperary.
The Training Review A Garda Training Review Group examined how to increase training capacity, including: ► maximising Templemore’s throughput; ► establishing a second college; ► using other institutions or locations; ► providing outreach training.
Mr Lowry says the review protects Templemore’s status but concluded that developing Dromard would require unjustifiable investment. However, the complete final report, Dromard assessment and comparative costings do not appear to have been published. Until they are released, those conclusions remain Mr Lowry’s account of the review rather than independently verifiable findings.
Dromard Farm Dromard Farm at Clonmore is approximately six kilometres from Templemore and comprises about 256 acres: 160 acres of grazing land and 96 acres of woodland, together with a uninhabited period house and sheds. The OPW purchased it in 2006, at the Department of Justice’s request, for a proposed Garda Centre of Excellence. Planned uses included public-order, firearms, detective, surveillance, dog, mounted and water-unit training, together with off-road motorcycle, four-wheel-drive and other driver training. It is therefore reasonable to say that Dromard was bought partly for advanced Garda driver training. It was not purchased solely as a high-speed pursuit track. A tactical training building was constructed in 2008, while part of the woodland was used for off-road vehicle and motorcycle exercises. The notion of introducing a larger Centre of Excellence was abandoned following Ireland’s financial crisis.
What Did It Cost? The strongest contemporaneous records give Dromard’s purchase price as €4.3 million. Some recent political statements, by Mr Alan Kelly TD, use a figure of €5.5 million, but no public breakdown supporting that amount can we locate. It possibly could include fees, taxes or subsequent expenditure, but the OPW should now clarify this. Until then, €4.3 million is the best-supported purchase price. At approximately €16,800 per acre, Dromard’s €4.3 million purchase price was below reported national and regional farmland averages during the 2006 property boom. It cannot therefore be described as a clear market overpayment on the available figures. However, the property contained substantial woodland and an uninhabitable house, and the State may have purchased a much larger and more expensive estate than Garda requirements justified. The later failure to develop or fully use it turned a potentially market-priced acquisition into questionable value for the taxpayer.
Then came the Rent Controversy Between 2009 and 2013, Garda College administration rented Dromard land to local farmers, even though the OPW was its legal owner. The OPW could find no documented agreement authorising the Garda College to take over the letting. An internal audit initially identified €124,903 in rent. Instead of being paid to the OPW, the money had been lodged into the Garda College Restaurant Account. The final verified amount was €131,260.80. An Garda Síochána then repaid that money to the OPW on July 6th 2017. This same €131,260.80 was repaid to the OPW from the “Garda Vote”, latter An Garda Síochána’s taxpayer-funded annual budget. This meant that public money intended for Garda services was used to replace rent that had previously been placed in the Garda College Restaurant Account.” The Public Accounts Committee report found a serious failure to monitor and control State property and finances, but no public outrage was observed.
Was It A Cover-Up? There is strong evidence that the wider Templemore financial problems were kept from effective scrutiny for years. The Public Accounts Committee found that: ► financial problems had been identified as early as 2006; ► recommendations from earlier reports were not implemented; ► senior management had numerous opportunities to address the problems; ► internal auditors did not receive adequate support or cooperation; ► disclosure to oversight bodies was unacceptably delayed; ► a significant number of senior personnel knew about the irregularities.
Mr John Barrett, then Garda Executive Director of Human Resources, alleged that senior figures tried to prevent the issues from “breaking cover”. Evidence also emerged of communications suggesting auditors should be kept “at bay”. It is therefore reasonable in ordinary language to describe the wider affair as prolonged institutional concealment or obstruction of oversight. However, no court finding located establishes that named individuals entered into a criminal conspiracy specifically to conceal or steal the Dromard rent. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that there is strong evidence of prolonged institutional concealment and avoidance of proper oversight concerning the wider Templemore finances. Whether this constituted a criminal cover-up of the Dromard rent specifically has not been established in a court of law. GSOC completed a six-year criminal investigation into the wider financial irregularities and sent a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2023. No reliable public confirmation of a prosecution concerning the Dromard rent can be located.
Questions Still Requiring Answers Before Dromard is sold, the Government and OPW should now publish:
The final Garda Training Review report.
The complete Dromard technical and cost assessment.
Its present valuation, use and rental income.
An explanation of the €4.3 million and €5.5 million figures.
Any formal decision authorising its disposal.
The comparison between investing in Dromard, Templemore, Tallaght or a second college.
Templemore is not facing closure, but political assurances are not a substitute for published evidence. Given Dromard’s history, the public deserves complete transparency before a valuable State training asset is disposed of.
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