Soapbox « Thurles Information

New Figures Expose Ongoing Pothole Damage In Co. Tipperary.

Fresh figures showing compensation paid to motorists for pothole damage underline the continuing burden poor road conditions are placing on drivers across county Tipperary.

Tipperary County Council has paid out €50,105 in compensation for pothole-related vehicle damage since 2023. While this is below the very highest totals seen elsewhere in our emerald isle, it still places Tipperary among the more significant local authority payouts and points to a persistent problem on our counties roads.

These figures must be seen in the wider national context. Local authorities paid approximately €1.3 million in compensation to motorists over the past three years for pothole-related damage. That is a serious cost to the public purse, but it is also a direct cost to families, workers and business owners, latter who rely on safe and passable roads every day.

What is particularly concerning in Co. Tipperary is that the claims issue does not appear to be isolated or short-term. Council management reports have shown an ongoing stream of pothole claims during 2024 and 2025, reinforcing the view that this is a recurring roads maintenance issue, rather than a once-off spike.

There is also concern that some motorists feel they were deliberately ignored or did not receive adequate responses, after raising road damage issues. That only adds to public frustration. When people take the time to report hazardous road conditions or seek redress for damage caused, they are entitled to clear communication, fair treatment and timely follow-up.

It is important to state that councils are not automatically liable for every pothole-related incident. In general, compensation arises where there is evidence of negligence or where repairs or interventions may have been carried out to an insufficient standard. However, that makes it all the more important that repairs are durable, properly inspected and carried out before defects worsen and place more motorists at risk.

The real issue here is not only compensation after the fact. The real issue is prevention.
Tipperary needs a stronger and more proactive road maintenance programme, faster response times to reported defects, better quality control on repairs, and greater transparency for the public on how complaints and claims are handled.

Real Costs of getting behind the wheel of a vehicle here in Ireland.
Irish motorists continue to face an escalating financial burden, with basic motoring-related taxes and charges estimated to generate some €6.2 billion annually for the State. From high fuel costs driven by excise duty, carbon tax, VAT and additional levies, to Vehicle Registration Tax and annual motor tax, drivers are contributing at every stage of car ownership and use. On top of these standard charges, motorists must also absorb insurance levies, tolls, NCT fees, parking charges and a growing range of fines and penalties for road traffic and parking offences, all of which add to the overall cost of getting behind the wheel.
Yes, and I haven’t mentioned property tax which is partially associated in housing same vehicle.
While electric vehicle owners currently benefit from reduced rates in some areas, concern is mounting that further measures, including a proposed weight-based tax on heavier vehicles such as SUVs, could place even more pressure on drivers in the years ahead.
Motorists should therefore not be left paying the price for road failures that could and should have been addressed months earlier.

Motorists are calling on Tipperary County Council to:

prioritise lasting repairs on known problem routes, the streets of Thurles town being one neglected area
improve response systems for motorists reporting potholes and road damage,
ensure all complainants receive timely acknowledgement and follow-up,
publish clearer local data on pothole complaints, repairs and claims outcomes.

People across Tipperary deserve safer roads, better accountability, and a council response that is effective, transparent and fair.

“Unprovoked Military Aggression”? Ireland Knows What Such Words Can Hide.

Sinn Féin leader Ms Mary Lou McDonald has condemned the recent/latest US and Israeli strikes, calling them “an act of unprovoked military aggression” and urging a halt to military action and a return to diplomacy.

Wrapped in the sanctimony of condemning ‘unprovoked military aggression,’ Sinn Féin’s moral certainty jars with a past in which civilians were too often treated as collateral.

That phrase, “unprovoked military aggression”, is designed to do a lot of work in a very small space. It tells you who the villains are, who the victims are, and who holds the moral high ground. It’s a clean sentence. A righteous sentence. The kind of sentence that fits neatly into a clip for an evening news bulletin.

The problem for Sinn Féin is that Ireland’s memory is not short, clean and neat, and neither is modern Sinn Féin’s own history. Because, while Sinn Féin is a political party, it was long widely regarded as the political wing of the Provisional IRA, even if both have emphasized separateness since the 1990s. That association matters, not as a cheap talking point, but because it drags out a very specific set of ghosts into any conversation about violence and legitimacy. And those ghosts have names, dates, and places, where civilians paid the ultimate price.

Civilians in the crosshairs: Provisional IRA (PIRA)
If readers want to understand why some people hear “unprovoked aggression” and immediately wince; you don’t need to reach for ideology. You just need a calendar of factual events .

21st July 1972 – Belfast (“Bloody Friday”): 22 bombs in 75 minutes. 9 killed, around 130 seriously injured.
31st July 1972 – Claudy, Co. Londonderry (“Bloody Monday”): Three car bombs, 9 civilians killed, 30 injured.
17th February 1978 – La Mon House Hotel/Restaurant, near Comber, Co. Down: an incendiary device killed 12 and injured 30 in a restaurant setting.
27th August 1979 – Mullaghmore, Co. Sligo (Mountbatten assassination): a bomb on a boat killed four, including teenagers Nicholas Knatchbull (14yrs) and Paul Maxwell (15yrs).
8th November 1987 – Enniskillen, Co. Fermanagh (Remembrance Day bombing): a bomb at a ceremony killed 11 people initially, most of them civilians.
20th March 1993 – Warrington, England: bombs in litter bins killed two children (Jonathan Ball, 3yrs; Tim Parry, 12) and injured 56 persons.
23rd October 1993 – Shankill Road, Belfast: a bomb detonated prematurely in a fish shop; 10 killed, including eight civilians and two children.

These aren’t “military operations.” They’re not “surgical strikes.” They’re the messy, brutal reality of what happens when violence is sold as strategy and civilians are treated as collateral, or as leverage.
So when Sinn Féin’s leader uses the language of moral clarity about foreign wars, people are entitled to ask: where was that clarity when Irish and British civilians were being blown apart in pubs, streets, shops, at ceremonies, and in restaurants? Again, ordinary people, normal venues, lives ended in pieces.

Real IRA: Omagh and the moral bankruptcy of “after”.
Then there’s Omagh, the moment that shattered any illusion that mass-casualty bombing belonged to the past.
15th August 1998 – Omagh, Co. Tyrone: the Real IRA bombing killed 29 and injured 200 plus.
Whatever someone wants to call it; be it ‘war’, ‘resistance’, ‘conflict’, Omagh made one thing undeniable; there is no political argument that redeems the slaughter of civilians in a town centre.

The point isn’t “whataboutism.” It’s credibility.
Defenders will say, “Sinn Féin today is not the Provisional IRA”. True, in the direct operational sense. But Sinn Féin can’t have it both ways, it can’t trade on a revolutionary heritage when it suits, then act offended when that heritage is raised as a moral mirror. Britannica’s phrasing is blunt for a reason: “Sinn Féin was long widely regarded as the political wing of the Provisional IRA”.

So yes, Ms McDonald can condemn foreign strikes as “unprovoked military aggression.”
But if Sinn Féin wants to speak like an international referee, it should expect people to replay their tapes, and on their tapes, watch as civilians scream, burn, bleed and die.
No, it’s not ancient history. No, it’s the price paid by ordinary people who never got to vote on anybody’s future “strategy.” And it’s why moral language, used cheaply, can sound less like principle, and more like a theatre performance, for the less informed.

“Unprovoked Military Aggression”, said Ms Mary Lou McDonald.
Let us take a look at Iran’s weapons support and who it armed, and roughly for how long, up until this year (2026).

Hezbollah (Lebanon): since1982 – (44 years).
Hamas + Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) associated with Sinn Féin: the former commonly described as armed/supported since the 1990s era – (30–36 years).

Major war-theater pipelines.
Houthis / Ansar Allah (Yemen): at least since 2014 (and UN panels have identified Iranian-origin missile/UAV remnants in Yemen) – (12+ years.)
Syrian government / pro-Assad forces: widely reported military support since 2011 – (15 years).

Newer state-to-state channel.
Russia: transfers tied to the Ukraine war since 2022; UK/France/Germany have publicly condemned Iran’s ballistic missile transfers – (4 years).

Hezbollah timeline:
1982: Hezbollah emerges, founded in the context of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon with Iranian support.
18th Apr 1983: U.S. Embassy bombing, Beirut: 63 killed. Frequently attributed in U.S. accounts to Hezbollah-linked networks / “Islamic Jihad Organization
23rd Oct 1983: U.S. Marine barracks bombing, Beirut: 241 U.S. service members killed.23rd Oct 1983: French paratrooper barracks bombing, Beirut: 58 French soldiers killed.
20th Sep 1984: U.S. Embassy annex bombing (Aukar), Beirut: 23 killed.
3rd Dec 1984: Kuwait Airways Flight 221 hijacking: 2 killed (two U.S. passengers murdered).
14th–30th Jun 1985: TWA Flight 847 hijacking (Athens): 1 killed (U.S. Navy diver Robert Stethem).
12 Apr 1985: El Descanso restaurant bombing (Spain): 18 killed.
7th Mar 1992: Assassination of Ehud Sadan (Israeli Embassy security chief), Ankara: 1 killed, 3 injured; claimed by “Islamic Jihad Organization,” Hezbollah suspected/denied.
17th Mar 1992:Israeli Embassy bombing, Buenos Aires: 29 killed, 242 injured; claim of responsibility by “Islamic Jihad Organization,” which has been linked to Iran/Hezbollah in many accounts.
28th Jan 1993: Attempted murder of Jak Kamhi (prominent Turkish Jewish figure): shot and survived; discussed in intelligence/terrorism reporting as part of Iran/Hezbollah-linked activity.
17th Mar 1994: Attempted bombing of the Israeli Embassy, Bangkok: failed after suspects’ car crash; C4 reportedly found.
18th Jul 1994: AMIA bombing, Buenos Aires: 85 killed; widely attributed by Argentine judicial/official actions and major reporting to Hezbollah with Iranian backing, (Iran denies).
19th Jul 1994: Alas Chiricanas Flight 901 bombing (Panama): 21 killed; long unresolved, later treated publicly by U.S. sources as Hezbollah-linked.
Apr 1996: Hezbollah rocket fire into northern Israel (Grapes of Wrath period): Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets; exact counts/precise injury figures vary by source.
25th Jun 1996: Khobar Towers bombing (Saudi Arabia): 19 killed; attribution often tied to Saudi Hezbollah/Hezbollah al-Hejaz, but it is politically disputed in some accounts.
7th Oct 2000: Abduction of three Israeli soldiers: abducted, later confirmed dead; remains returned in 2004 exchange.
14th Feb 2005: Assassination of Rafik Hariri (Beirut): 22 killed. International legal proceedings convicted Hezbollah members (in absentia), while also noting limits on proof regarding leadership direction.
12th Jul 2006: Cross-border raid: 8 Israeli soldiers killed, 2 captured; triggers the 2006 Lebanon War.
26th May 2011: Attempted assassination of Israel’s consul in Istanbul: some reporting ties it to Iran/Hezbollah; treated as alleged.
Feb 2012: India/Georgia diplomat attack attempts: widely discussed as an Iran-linked campaign, sometimes described as Iran/Hezbollah-linked.
2012: Bulgaria (Burgas) bus bombing: 6 killed (+ bomber); Bulgarian/EU assessments attributed involvement to Hezbollah operatives; Hezbollah denies.
2012: Azerbaijan plot against Israeli ambassador / Chabad-linked targets: widely described as Iran-linked; “Iran/Hezbollah” appears in some reporting/claims.
Apr 2014: Bangkok plot targeting Israeli tourists (Passover/Songkran period): Thai authorities arrested suspects described in reporting as Hezbollah members/agents.
May–Jun 2015: Cyprus ammonium nitrate seizure: Reuters reported Cyprus believed it foiled a major attack; Israel said it bore Hezbollah hallmarks.
2015: London-area ammonium nitrate cache, widely reported as a 2015 discovery later revealed publicly.
Nov 2023: Brazil: foiled plot targeting Jewish-linked sites: Brazilian federal police said suspects were recruited/funded by Hezbollah; treated as alleged pending full public case details.
27th Jul 2024: Majdal Shams (Golan Heights) strike: 12 killed; a rocket attack. Israel/U.S. blamed Hezbollah; Hezbollah denied responsibility.

So should the USA and Israel attack be therefore described as “Unprovoked Military Aggression”?
If a strike is responding to an armed attack carried out by an Iran-backed aggressor, supporters can surely argue that it’s actions are not “unprovoked.”

Pause Exposes A Process Tipperary Schools Never Trusted.

The decision by Minister for Education and Youth, Ms Hildegarde Naughton to pause the SNA allocation review is being presented as calm, careful engagement. In reality, it reads like an emergency brake pulled after the system lost public confidence. The Department today has now halted all review changes, including cases where schools had already been notified of reductions, and has halted further letters being distributed, until further talks conclude.

That climbdown matters because the damage was not theoretical. By mid-February, national reporting indicated a substantial number of schools had been advised of proposed reductions for September 2026, with reviews still ongoing across the system. In places like County Tipperary, where schools already balance long travel distances, limited specialist services and stretched staffing, even the suggestion of a cut can trigger immediate anxiety for families and staff, because replacing supports is rarely straightforward, and delays have real consequences.

The most serious criticism is not that reviews exist, but that the review appears to be anchored to a narrow definition of “primary care need”, while schools are trying to deliver genuine inclusion in busy, complex classrooms. This approach may suit an administrative model, but it struggles to reflect the daily reality of autism, anxiety, communication needs, sensory overload, behavioural regulation and safety supports that keep children present, learning and well in school.

Even where Government insists overall SNA numbers are rising nationally, parents do not experience “national totals”. They experience whether support exists in their child’s classroom, in their school, on their timetable, from next September. For principals, the immediate issue has been the uncertainty; letters arriving without clear explanations that schools and communities can trust, and an appeals-based system becoming the default route to preserve basic supports.

The result is a familiar pattern; schools forced into scramble mode, families left fearful, and SNAs living with insecurity, while Ministers attempt to restore confidence after the fact.

If Ireland can fund the world, it can fund inclusion here at home.
Government has pointed to significant overall spending on special education and additional SNA posts. But the public anger here is rooted in a simple perception; children with additional needs are being treated as a variable in a resourcing exercise, rather than as young citizens, whose right to education should be guaranteed in practice, not merely promised in policy statements.

This is where the old phrase about Ireland as the “land of saints and scholars” starts to ring hollow. A country that prides itself on education should not run a core disability support through a process that leaves parents hearing developments informally, or forces schools into repeated fights to keep what they already have.

Political contrast is unavoidable.
The State can move quickly and confidently when funding priorities relate to foreign policy, international commitments, or expanding the national footprint abroad.
In Budget 2026, the State found record allocations to project Ireland abroad; a record €840m in overseas development assistance and new funding for expanded diplomatic footprints, championed by Mr Simon Harris, through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It also committed a record €1.49bn for defence, through the Department of Defence. Separate reporting has put Ireland’s support to Ukraine since 2022 at €467m, with further commitments announced in late 2025.
Those decisions may be defensible in their own right, but they sharpen the question parents keep asking; “Why does the system struggle so visibly when it comes to getting certainty right for children with special educational needs here at home?”

That question lands sharply at local level. In County Tipperary, as in many counties, schools are not arguing for luxury supports. They are arguing for stability, the ability to plan staffing, to avoid disruptions for vulnerable children to prevent September becoming a cliff-edge, where SNAs are central to keeping children safe, regulated and able to access learning, the idea of “review first, reform later” feels somewhat backwards.

The pause must not become a temporary quietening of the headlines, before the same review process returns with slightly amended language. If Government is serious about inclusion, it should redesign allocations around individual need, transparency, and proper multi-disciplinary supports and not around a narrow definition of care and an appeals mechanism that schools rely on to prevent harm.

If Ireland wants to be a land of scholars again, it needs to start by proving, in real staffing decisions, that children who need support will have it, without panic, without uncertainty, and without having to fight for it, every upcoming year.

Chocolate Easter Eggs, Peppa Pig, & The Price Of “Pester Power”

The Easter Supermarket Aisle is really a ‘Confession’ of what we Value.

Not taste. Not ingredients. Not children’s health. What we value and what we reward, is packaging that wins the argument in the moment.

Enter into any Irish supermarket in the weeks before Easter and you’ll find it, that dazzling wall of foil, cartoon faces and glossy packaging, positioned strategically at child height.
Now walk a child past that wall of Easter eggs and watch what happens. They don’t scan ingredients. They scan cartoon characters, colour and sparkle. Their attention is being bought through design and the bill is handed to parents at the till.

That’s why the palm oil conversation matters. Not because palm oil is a cartoon villain, but because it’s often part of a bigger formula: cheaper fats, big sweetness, high profit margin, huge volume.
And, when you attach that formula to a licence kids already love, you get a product that sells itself and most importantly for the retailer, sells fast.

A Tesco listing for a Tesco Peppa Pig Easter product includes “Vegetable Fats (Palm, Shea…)”.
Read that again; the most child-attractive packaging can be paired with ingredients designed to protect a price point, not a growing body.
Now here’s the part that will annoy people. Supermarkets will say, “We simply stock what customers buy.”

Yes True, but incomplete.
Retailers shape what customers buy. They choose what gets eye-level space, what gets aisle-end promotion, what gets “2 for €X”. They decide what looks like the normal choice.
If the loudest, sweetest, most character-heavy egg is placed where every family must pass, then “choice” becomes a bit of theatre. A kid asks. A parent caves. The system works exactly as is so designed.

And don’t pretend we don’t know the long game. Health guidance remains consistent: keep saturated fat lower overall and don’t let it quietly dominate the diet.
We also know that diets built around ultra-processed treats don’t damage a child in one day, they train preferences and routines over years.

The tragedy is that Irish makers who are trying to do it better are often invisible to children.

Chocolate Garden of Ireland says it does not use palm oil.
Clo Chocolates says “NO palm oil.”
Grá Chocolates’ founder says they’ll never use it.

That’s a strong ethical and ingredient choice. But on a crowded Easter shelf, a subtle box can’t compete with the instant dopamine or feel-good hit of a character egg.

So here’s my fair, defensible ask:
Supermarkets: Stop hiding Irish quality behind adult-looking packaging and premium-price assumptions. Give local makers seasonal visibility where families actually shop. Supermarkets aren’t trying to harm children. They are, however, designed to maximise sales per metre of shelf space. Character products sell fast, drive “pester power”, and deliver predictable seasonal turnover. Artisan chocolate can be slower-moving, pricier, and less visually “grabby” for small hands.
Irish chocolatiers: You don’t need to slap a cartoon face on everything, but you do need to meet kids where they are. Easter is visual. Make “better ingredients” look fun. The uncomfortable truth is that the better chocolate product often loses the packaging battle. Here’s where Easter gets unfair. Many artisan brands package beautifully for adults; elegant boxes, subtle colours, premium cues, but kids don’t buy with adult eyes.
Parents: Don’t let the aisle decide for you. Flip the box. Read the fat list. Buy the fun, but buy it with open eyes. Look for palm oil/palm kernel oil on the label (it will be named).

Easter should be a treat. It shouldn’t be a marketing lesson where children learn that the brightest box is automatically the best choice.

If we really want better food culture, we have to reward it, not just applaud it.

After Recent Fresh Dáil calls For Votes At Age 16, Ireland Should Think Twice.

Reducing the voting age to 16 is often sold as a simple, modern reform, to bring young people into the ‘democratic tent’ earlier, to boost turnout, and strengthen civic culture.
In practice, it is neither simple nor risk-free. If voting is the most consequential act of civic membership, then lowering the threshold should only happen where the benefits are clear, durable and supported by institutional scaffolding to make sure it work.
Right now, there are strong reasons not to entertain it.

First is principle and coherence: Eighteen is widely understood as the point at which the State recognises full adult status. Voting sits alongside other “full membership” rights and responsibilities, and it matters that this package is intelligible. Lowering the voting age, while leaving most other adult thresholds intact, either creates a new inconsistency, or invites pressure to “tidy up” the rest of the law to match. Either way, it is not a neat reform; it changes the logic of adulthood in public policy.

Second. The lived reality of 16-year-olds is structural dependence. Many teenagers are financially dependent, living under parental authority, and constrained by school and household expectations. That does not mean they cannot form political views. It does mean their ability to cast an independent vote can be narrower than it is for adults. In some cases, the risk is that a ballot becomes a proxy for household influence, not a genuinely autonomous civic voice.

Third. The modern information environment makes younger cohorts more vulnerable to manipulation. Politics is increasingly shaped by micro-targeting, influencer pipelines and rapid misinformation loops. Expanding the electorate to include minors increases the premium on strong media-literacy and civic preparation. Even advocates of votes at 16 regularly acknowledge that early, structured political education is essential. The problem is that civic education is uneven and often contested, so the reform risks outpacing the safeguards.

Fourth concern: Schools become an unavoidable political battleground. If 16-year-olds are voters, schools are the most efficient point of contact. Teachers and principals would face intensified pressure to “balance” content; parents would worry about politics being smuggled into classrooms; campaign groups would seek access through “non-partisan” resources. International discussions of votes at 16 frequently stress education as a prerequisite, but that is exactly where the most polarising arguments land.

Fifth. There are serious administrative and safeguarding complications around registration. An electoral register must be usable and transparent, but the Irish State also has a duty to protect under 18s’ personal data. Where 16–17s have been enfranchised, special arrangements have been needed to manage this tension. It is not a reason never to do it, but it is a reason not to treat the change as cost-free or merely symbolic.

Sixth. The political and constitutional “bandwidth” argument matters, especially in Ireland. Changing the national voting age is not a routine legislative tweak; it carries constitutional implications and would demand major political energy. In a country with multiple urgent reform priorities; housing, health capacity, infrastructure, cost-of-living etc., there is a fair question; “Is this the best use of this scarce reform capital?”

And Finally. The promised benefits are not guaranteed. Events that feel unusually important, visible, and emotionally charged, can see strong youth participation, but that does not automatically translate into higher turnout in ordinary elections or lasting engagement. Research from countries that have lowered the age are encouraging findings in some contexts, mixed results in others, and a recurring theme that outcomes depend heavily on preparation and political environment. In other words, the evidence is conditional not a clear mandate.

None of this denies that young people deserve a stronger voice.
It argues that lowering the voting age is a blunt tool with real downsides. If the aim is youth influence and civic strength, there are lower-risk steps; better civic education and media-literacy; easier registration at 18; structured youth assemblies with real consultation power; even pilots at local level where issues are closer to daily life. Before redefining who gets a vote, we should fix the foundations that make democratic participation meaningful in the first place.