Sir, – Eoin Drea‘s article on Ireland’s EU presidency provides many examples of “an Ireland that is totally directionless on EU affairs”. At least two are baseless.

First, he argues that Brussels sees Ireland as doubling down on its own self-serving agenda – with the appointment of Niamh Sweeney as data protection commissioner just the most recent example.

He describes her as “a former senior Meta lobbyist”, as if that connection is sufficient, of itself, to disqualify her from the role. On the contrary, it is entirely appropriate that there is a wide range of experiences across all three members of the Data Protection Commission (DPC). Her understanding of the technology sector will be invaluable to the commission’s work.

Moreover, whilst her appointment was formally made by the Government, it was done on the recommendation of the Public Appointments Service. Their role is to provide an open and transparent recruitment process to identify on merit top-quality candidates for public sector roles.

They will have probed in their interview with Ms Sweeney the extent to which she can be impartial and independent of an employer she left four years ago.

It stars Stephen Moyer (imdb | wikipedia) as DI Mick Palmer of the Heritage Crime Unit, and Nina Singh (imdb) as DC Shazia Malik of the East Yorkshire Police (pictured left; courtesy of Black Dog Television).

Series 1, episode 1, Pictures At An Exhibition (2025) (imdb | rotten tomatoes | recap), features an ever-green reference to forged Vermeers, and a rather more serious echo of the Zong massacre (which I have discussed several times on this blog); warning: spoilers ahead!

Art Historian, Francis Crozier of the National Gallery, was assisting Hugh Astleigh, thirteenth Earl of Halesby, to re-assemble the Astleigh family art collection in their ancestral home. (In the first act, it is decribed by Mick as the “perfect example of a Victorian Italianate palazzo … like a doll’s house on steroids”; in the second act, Lord Hugh’s unhappy (and, we later discover, philandering) wife, Lady Arabella, dismisses it as a “decrepit, debt-ridden castle”; “what a prize” she says, derisively).…

First, the legal issues. He provides the usual bromides that the Constitution provides for a balance between freedom of expression and the right a good name, and that the platforms’ seeming impunity threatens to upend that balance. However, he never quite states what the balance is. Nor does he address the point that an alternative position, such as the one he implies is being struck by social media platforms, could also satisfy the constitutional balance. Merely to state that there is such a balance is not to make it in an individual case, and McDowell fails to do so in his piece.

Moreover, the current position is largely dictated by EU law. A Directive of 2000, implemented in Ireland in 2003, provided that social media platforms are not liable in damages for hosting defamatory content of which they have not been made aware. An equivalent US provision, introduced in 1996, has been described as “the twenty-six words that created the internet”; another US equivalent, introduced in 1998, is here.…

Medical device company paid €720,000 twice by HSE for the same invoice now in liquidation
Health service [HSE] says it is engaged with liquidator to recover overpayment to PMD Device Solutions Ltd

A company paid more than €720,000 twice by the Health Service Executive (HSE) on foot of the same invoice is now in liquidation. The HSE said it was “engaged with the liquidator to recover and resolve this overpayment, among other matters”. So far the overpayment has not been recouped. …

The Irish Times reported on Friday that the HSE financial report for 2024 showed one company had been paid more than €720,000 from two different parts of the health service on foot of the same invoice. No cross-checking had been carried out.

… gave a good definition of what a SLAPP is and what it means for society. She said that “laws that were designed to protect people who are genuinely hurt are being used as a tool of abuse and aggression by people in power against people with no power.”

And Daphne was right! SLAPPs are one of the most hurtful tools to stifle free speech. The simple threat of filing such a lawsuit is sometimes enough to bring about the desired effect of halting activism or journalists’ investigations and reporting.

SLAPPs represent a serious threat to freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and to the right to acquire information for public interest.