DO WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION — OR IS IT BECOMING A FAKE? Ireland has a written Constitution. But a Constitution is not made real simply because its words exist on paper. Article 5 states that Ireland is a sovereign, independent, democratic state. Article 6 goes further: the powers of government — legislative, executive and judicial — derive from the people. So I believe we need to ask a much more uncomfortable question: What happens when constitutional rights exist in theory, but the structures needed to vindicate them do not work in time? What happens when a citizen has a constitutional right today, but delay means that by the time a court can provide a remedy, the event has already happened, the decision has become final, the election has taken place, the opportunity has disappeared, or the damage can no longer realistically be reversed? At that point, is the right still a meaningful constitutional right? Or have we created something much more troubling: a Constitution that is powerful in text but potentially weak in operation? This is at the heart of my developing work on the Constitutional Blind Spot, constitutional time, the closing remedial window and the temporal weakening of constitutional rights. A functioning Constitution must do more than announce rights. It must be capable of protecting them when protection still matters. Otherwise we risk reaching a profoundly disturbing position in which constitutional protection exists formally, while effective constitutional protection disappears in practice. And that raises the question I think Ireland now needs to confront openly: Do we have a living Constitution that genuinely controls the exercise of public power — or are we sometimes left with only the appearance of constitutional protection? Because if power derives from the people, constitutional structures must ultimately work for the people. A right that cannot be vindicated in time may remain a right in words — while becoming almost meaningless in reality. Dr Cora M. Stack Mathematician & Interdisciplinary Scholar #IrishConstitution #ConstitutionalLaw #Democracy #RuleOfLaw #AccessToJustice #ConstitutionalRights #ConstitutionalTime #Ireland

The greatest power is not the power to dominate. It's the power to build a future that works for everyone. Our shared future will be forged by whether humanity can govern power wisely. Together, let's meet this challenge with determination & resolve for a better world for all.

Mayo joins nationwide family courts solidarity walk mayonews.ie/news/castlebar/m…

Figalli’s warning about AI If AI generates proofs without explaining the reasoning, students may lose valuable opportunities to struggle, explore, and think creatively. Mathematics is not only about getting the right answer. It is also about understanding why it works. As AI prioritizes speed and efficiency, education may need to place greater emphasis on reasoning and independent problem-solving.

Whistleblowers getting a raw deal once again...

CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL FOUR GARDA WHISTLEBLOWERS — COURAGE HAS A COST, AND WE MUST LISTEN I want to publicly acknowledge and congratulate all four whistleblowers who spoke out in RTÉ Investigates: The Gardaí – Full Disclosure. What struck me most profoundly was not simply what they disclosed, but what each of these four people appears to have endured for speaking up. These were not people standing at a distance commenting on wrongdoing. They were people working within the system who say they tried to raise serious concerns through the mechanisms supposedly created to protect those who speak out. And all four have suffered hugely. Dr Donal Corcoran, Rose Sweeney, Detective Superintendent Brian O’Reilly, and the fourth whistleblower featured and named in the programme each deserve to have their courage recognised. RTÉ reports that all four allege that they were singled out for doing their jobs and that all four described a hostile culture and systemic resistance to protected disclosures. The consequences described are deeply troubling. Dr Corcoran and Ms Sweeney, for example, are reported as being out of their workplaces, on unpaid sick leave and dependent on illness benefit. Whatever ultimately emerges from the investigation of the underlying allegations, there is a much wider issue here that Ireland — and indeed workplaces everywhere — urgently needs to confront: Why does speaking up so often appear to carry such an enormous personal and professional price? Whistleblowing legislation is of little practical value if people technically possess legal protection but nevertheless face isolation, sidelining, loss of role, reputational damage, financial hardship or professional erasure after raising concerns. This problem extends far beyond policing. Across workplaces and institutions, people can become afraid to challenge wrongdoing because they have seen what can happen to those who do. That culture has to change. I have just completed further research examining what I believe are major structural weaknesses in the design and operation of protected-disclosure systems, including penalisation, omission, procedural control, institutional self-protection and the enormous imbalance of power that can arise after somebody speaks out. These questions also connect with the wider constitutional issues I am bringing before the Supreme Court concerning institutional power, accountability and the practical effectiveness of legal protections. But today I simply want to recognise these four people. Speaking out when doing so may threaten your livelihood, career, reputation and wellbeing requires exceptional courage. To all four: thank you for speaking. Thank you for refusing to remain silent. And thank you for making visible a problem that extends far beyond any one organisation. People who disclose wrongdoing should not have to sacrifice their careers or their wellbeing simply for telling the truth as they understand it. We need to protect the people who speak up — not destroy them for doing so. Dr Cora M. Stack Mathematician & Interdisciplinary Scholar 2025 Ramanujan Memorial Award for Excellence in Academic Leadership #Whistleblowers #ProtectedDisclosures #SpeakingUp #Accountability #WorkplaceCulture #RTÉInvestigates #AnGardaSíochána #Justice #InstitutionalAccountability #HumanRights

Women in STEM: Discrimination, Misogyny and the Hidden Barriers to Equality I read with great interest the reflections of Associate Professor Aoibhinn Ní Shúilleabháin on choosing theoretical physics and on the importance of problem-solving, mathematics and scientific thinking. However, I think we need to challenge one aspect of the wider conversation about women in STEM. The continuing under-representation and loss of women from mathematics, physics, engineering and other STEM disciplines cannot adequately be explained in terms of perception, confidence, personal preference or individual choice. We need to talk much more directly about discrimination. Women do not make career decisions in a vacuum. They operate inside institutional structures involving recruitment, promotion, recognition, research opportunities, leadership appointments, committee membership, professional networks, allocation of resources and decisions about whose expertise is heard and whose achievements are acknowledged. The question therefore should not simply be: Why do fewer women choose STEM? We should also be asking: What happens to women after they enter STEM? Who gets promoted? Who receives institutional recognition? Who is invited onto influential committees? Whose research is supported? Whose expertise is taken seriously? Who gets excluded, marginalised or professionally diminished? And what happens when a woman challenges the prevailing institutional culture? This distinction between perception and discrimination matters enormously. If the problem is characterised primarily as women’s perceptions, confidence or choices, responsibility subtly shifts back towards women themselves. If structural discrimination exists, however, responsibility rests with the institutions and systems that permit it. Dr Ní Shúilleabháin has herself previously spoken and written about cultural, structural, conscious and unconscious bias affecting women in STEM. Her own publicly documented experience of prolonged harassment in academia is also a powerful reminder that the working environment encountered by women after entering STEM must form part of this discussion. From my own research and long experience within mathematics and higher education, I believe misogyny, gender discrimination, withholding of recognition, professional exclusion and other less visible forms of institutional disadvantage require far more serious investigation across STEM. It is not enough to encourage girls to enter mathematics, physics, engineering and technology. We must ensure that the women who enter STEM are treated equitably once they get there — throughout their entire careers. This means examining not only recruitment, but also promotion, power, recognition, opportunity, professional visibility and institutional accountability. The problem is not simply who enters STEM. The deeper question is: Who is allowed to flourish once they are there? Dr Cora M. Stack Lecturer in Mathematics and Interdisciplinary Scholar Recipient of the 2025 Ramanujan Memorial Award for Excellence in Academic Leadership and Outstanding Achievements in Education in STEM — the first Irish recipient of the award in STEM. #WomenInSTEM #WomenInScience #WomenInMathematics #GenderEquality #GenderDiscrimination #Misogyny #STEM #HigherEducation #AcademicCulture #WorkplaceDiscrimination #StructuralDiscrimination #Equality #WomenInAcademia #AcademicLeadership #InstitutionalCulture #Mathematics #Physics #Engineering #WomenInLeadership

Bernie Sanders proposes 20 year prison sentence for AI devs who plow ahead with Artificial Superintelligence plans — penalty on par with illegally developing rogue nuclear weapons | Tom's Hardware share.google/PMr11XrYzKd8UIp…

AI can raise scores and still undermine learning. When AI substitutes for mental effort, it can reduce opportunities to develop critical thinking. At Digital Learning Week, @UNESCO promotes reflection and dialogue on how educators can use AI systems to foster critical thinking and learning, instead of doing the thinking for students. Learn more: unesco.org/en/weeks/digital-… #DigitalLearning #FutureOfEducation

The world is ruled by necessity: People change their behavior only if they have to. They will feel urgency only if their lives depend on it.

I resigned from Anthropic today. I spent the last three years doing pretraining research at both OpenAI and Anthropic. Neither company is acting responsibly. They are racing straight to self-improving superintelligence and gambling with our lives. More thoughts below.

The threats from AI ‘super intelligence ‘ are rapidly overtaking climate change as the most existential risk to human survival. Geoffrey Hinton doesn’t mince his words.

📷 A Huge Personal Milestone — Top 0.5% Globally on Academia.edu I am delighted to share that, as of 6 September 2026, my global ranking on Academia.edu has risen from the Top 1% to the Top 0.5% worldwide. This feels like a huge achievement and an important milestone in the reach of my interdisciplinary academic work. To move from the Top 1% to the Top 0.5% globally is something I am enormously pleased to have achieved. A sincere thank you to everyone across the world who has read, followed, discussed and engaged with my work. Your interest and contributions are deeply appreciated. Top 0.5% globally on Academia.edu — 6 September 2026. 📷

AN EPIDEMIC OF WORKPLACE BULLYING IN IRELAND — BUT WHERE IS THE ACCOUNTABILITY? Something deeply troubling appears to be emerging across major Irish public and public-service institutions. We have heard serious allegations and concerns involving bullying, harassment, discrimination and toxic workplace cultures in the HSE, National Ambulance Service, Defence Forces and other health and care organisations. Today, the HSE announced an independently chaired initiative specifically to examine concerns about bullying, harassment, discrimination and levels of trust within the National Ambulance Service. The Defence Forces, meanwhile, are already the subject of a major Tribunal examining how complaints of abuse were handled over decades. So we need to ask a much bigger question: Are we witnessing an epidemic of institutional bullying in Ireland? And, perhaps more importantly: When complaints are substantiated, is anyone actually held personally or institutionally accountable? How many investigations, reviews, tribunals, grievance procedures and reports have we had? How many recommendations? How many promises that “lessons will be learned”? But what happens to the people who allegedly bully, intimidate, retaliate against, silence or destroy the careers and wellbeing of others? And what happens to managers who receive serious complaints but fail to act? A functioning accountability system cannot simply investigate the injured person repeatedly while leaving the institutional structures that permitted the behaviour untouched. Ireland may now need to examine bullying not merely as a collection of isolated HR disputes, but as a systemic governance problem: power, organisational hierarchy, fear of retaliation, ineffective complaint mechanisms and the consequences of institutional failure to intervene. The fundamental question is remarkably simple: If nobody is ever meaningfully accountable, what exactly is supposed to deter the next case?

Our Story @HoHRCHO7 @HSELive

Sensible teachers have been saying for the past few years that schooling has been dumbed down, these latest PISA results now corroborate this. The current generation of children will be the first to be less smart that their parents. Shame on us.

SCANDAL: The Leaving Cert maths reform project: how did it get this far? The new draft curriculum for Leaving Cert maths is a scandal. Large amounts of critical material have been deleted. Students will be left without essential maths skills and will flounder at university level. The proposed changes must be reversed. Dr Isaac Burke holds a PhD in pure maths and has extensive teaching experience in university and Senior Cycle maths. He has compared the new draft curriculum with the current curriculum. Some of the radical changes to the Higher Level course are as follows: Students will no longer be required to solve equations in algebra, but simply to “justify proposed solutions”. The same new language is applied to the study of calculus and probability: students will be given solutions, and will simply have to check if those solutions are correct. Practically all topics which develop and encourage rigour and depth of thinking have been cut out. Some examples of such are the binomial theorem and discriminants in algebra, the change of base law (for logs), the angle between two lines in coordinate geometry, and p-values in statistics. There are many more. Complex numbers, proof by induction and constructions have been entirely deleted from the course. The topics of financial maths, trigonometry, geometry and hypothesis testing (in statistics) have been reduced down to what is currently on the Ordinary Level syllabus. All the set proofs have been dropped. Students will no longer study the proofs of any theorems/discoveries in maths and will not be required to reproduce any proofs in the exam. Essentially nothing new has been added. The overall result is a curriculum that is gutted of rigour and depth. Essential maths skills and foundations are absent. It will not inspire a love of mathematics. It will not train students to think critically, logically and coherently. If implemented, it will have disastrous consequences for Irish students and Irish society at large. The question is: how did it come to this? How could a 17-member team of so-called “professionals” produce such a document? What was going on in the 20 or so “meetings” of this group that have taken place since September 2024? Why was the alarm not raised sooner? Under the current proposals, students will be deceived into thinking that they are proficient in maths, only to flounder and fail when they enter university and the world of work. This is unconscionable. It is a scandal. We need a strong maths curriculum in Ireland. This curriculum is not fit for purpose. It must be scrapped – and those who proposed it must be held to account.

Serious Questions Concerning Expert Reports in Irish Family-Law Proceedings: Parliamentary Warnings, Systemic Patterns and the Case for Independent Investigation Introduction For several years, serious concerns were repeatedly raised in Dáil Éireann about the operation of expert reports in Irish family-law proceedings, particularly reports concerning children, allegations of parental alienation, and decisions that could result in children being separated from a parent. These concerns should not now be dismissed as isolated complaints from individual litigants. Former Fine Gael TD Bernard Durkan repeatedly brought the issue before the national parliament. By May 2023, he said that he had more than 100 cases on his desk and that families were continuing to contact him weekly. He had also supplied a redacted sample of 16 cases to senior members of Government while calling for an inquiry. The central question therefore becomes increasingly difficult to avoid: If numerous apparently independent family-law cases were producing recurring concerns about expert reports, similar allegations, comparable consequences and the separation of children from parents, was this adequately investigated as a possible systemic pattern rather than merely treated as a matter of family-law policy? That is a fundamentally different question. Bernard Durkan’s Parliamentary Intervention On 13 October 2022, Deputy Bernard Durkan raised concerns about section 47 reports in Dáil Éireann. He warned that the issue needed urgent attention and stated that there could be serious consequences if the activities of a particular named individual in the courts were allowed to continue. The individual's name remains publicly available in the official Dáil record and does not need to be repeated here. Durkan did not raise the matter once and then abandon it. On 13 July 2023, the Ceann Comhairle himself described Durkan's continued work on the subject as his “ongoing crusade.” Durkan again described cases in which mothers, and in some instances fathers, had been separated from their children for prolonged periods and questioned the operation and expertise underpinning reports relied upon in family-law proceedings. By May 2023, reporting documented that Durkan said he had accumulated more than 100 cases and was receiving new approaches from affected families every week. He sought an inquiry and supplied a sample of cases to the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Justice. This is important. One allegedly defective report may represent error. Several unrelated reports demonstrating materially similar defects may suggest a professional or methodological problem. A sufficiently consistent pattern across numerous cases potentially raises a different question altogether: whether conduct within the system should have been independently investigated rather than merely administratively reviewed. Parliamentary Privilege Was Not an Investigation Durkan's statements were made in Dáil Éireann under parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege exists so that elected representatives can bring serious matters before Parliament without being exposed to ordinary legal liability for their parliamentary speech. However, parliamentary privilege does not determine whether an allegation is true. Nor does the Dáil conduct criminal investigations. The Dáil cannot substitute for An Garda Síochána where information potentially discloses criminal conduct. Its proper functions include exposing matters of public concern, questioning Ministers, legislating, demanding accountability and seeking inquiries. A criminal investigation is fundamentally different. It can involve gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, examining documents and communications, testing competing explanations and determining whether a file should ultimately be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That distinction matters greatly here. A Wrong Report and a Deliberately Misleading Report Are Not the Same Thing There must also be considerable legal caution. An expert report can be wrong without being criminal. It can be poorly researched, methodologically weak, professionally negligent, biased, based upon incomplete information or simply mistaken. None of those matters automatically establishes criminal wrongdoing. But a different issue arises if evidence were to demonstrate that somebody knowingly created, altered, supplied or persisted with materially false or misleading information for the purpose of improperly influencing judicial proceedings. Irish law expressly recognises attempting to pervert the course of justice as an offence against the administration of justice. I make no allegation here that any identified person committed that offence. The point is narrower and more important: Where an evidenced pattern suggested that court reports might have been knowingly or deliberately misleading, should the possibility of an offence against the administration of justice have been independently assessed? That is properly a question for competent investigative authorities, not something that should simply be decided within political debate. Why a Pattern Changes the Evidential Question A repeated pattern matters enormously. Suppose several unrelated cases reveal some combination of: substantially similar factual inaccuracies; important evidence repeatedly omitted; serious allegations being characterised in the same manner despite different circumstances; conclusions unsupported by the material recorded in the case; the same disputed concepts repeatedly determining outcomes; children expressing views that were subsequently discounted or reinterpreted; reports exercising decisive influence over custody or access; repeated concerns about the qualifications or methodology of assessors; complaints being made but the same practices continuing. No single feature establishes wrongdoing. But when multiple independent cases repeatedly exhibit substantially similar features, it becomes reasonable to investigate whether the pattern has a common explanation. That is how systemic problems are normally identified. The appropriate response should not be to presume guilt. Equally, it should not be to presume that every occurrence was an unrelated mistake. The evidence should be examined. The Consequences Were Potentially Enormous These were not disputes about insignificant administrative documents. Expert reports in family proceedings can materially influence judicial decisions affecting where a child lives, which parent has custody, what access takes place and, in extreme situations, whether a child continues to have a meaningful relationship with a parent. That makes accuracy, independence, transparency and professional competence exceptionally important. In 2024, investigative reporting also documented concerns about the use of so-called “immersion therapy” in some cases. A senior Tusla manager had expressed concern about the practice, and Durkan supplied information arising from his review of multiple cases. This does not establish misconduct by any individual. It does, however, reinforce the proposition that Durkan was identifying concerns extending beyond a single dissatisfied litigant. Government Eventually Acknowledged That Reform Was Necessary It would be inaccurate to say that absolutely nothing happened. The Government ultimately took significant steps. In May 2023, the Department of Justice published commissioned research and a policy paper on parental alienation. Importantly, the research identified challenges concerning assessment and expert reports in the family courts. The resulting policy recommendations included examining how expert reports were conducted, what they contained, how assessors were appointed and what additional training was necessary. This was followed by a major Review of the Role of Expert Reports in the Family Law Process, published on 13 June 2024. It examined the commissioning, availability, content and use of expert reports and produced 20 recommendations for reform. Government subsequently allocated funding and created structures intended to implement those recommendations. Then, on 16 April 2026, new Judicial Guidelines on the Commissioning, Preparation, Content and Usage of Expert Reports in Family Law Proceedings were published. Those guidelines arose directly from the 2024 review. That sequence itself is significant: 2022: serious parliamentary warnings. 2023: more than 100 cases reported by Durkan and calls for an inquiry. 2023: Government policy paper identifies problems surrounding assessments and expert reports. 2024: comprehensive review produces 20 recommendations. 2024–2025: implementation structures and funding established. 2026: formal judicial guidelines governing expert reports introduced. This does not prove that earlier reports were deliberately misleading. But it demonstrates conclusively that the system itself was considered sufficiently problematic to require substantial reform. The Critical Unanswered Question: Was Any Criminal Referral Considered? The central unanswered question is therefore not whether government eventually reformed the system. It is: Were any individual cases examined to determine whether the conduct disclosed went beyond inadequate professional practice and potentially into deliberate interference with judicial proceedings? I have found no public evidence establishing that Durkan's dossier, or the specific concerns he repeatedly raised concerning expert reporting, resulted in a formal Garda investigation into whether any report had been deliberately falsified or knowingly presented in a misleading manner. Absence of public evidence does not prove that no referral or investigation occurred. Family-law proceedings are highly private, and Garda investigations may themselves not be publicly disclosed. Accordingly, the appropriate question is: Was the material ever referred to An Garda Síochána, or otherwise independently assessed, to determine whether any individual case disclosed evidence capable of constituting an offence against the administration of justice? If not, why not? Transparency and the “Behind Closed Doors” Problem Family-law proceedings have historically operated under substantial privacy restrictions. Protection of children and family privacy is essential, but secrecy can also make identification of patterns considerably more difficult. The Department of Justice itself has subsequently commissioned research into the operation of the in camera rule and the balance between privacy and transparency in family-law proceedings. That research produced recommendations aimed at increasing transparency while maintaining protection for children and families. This is particularly relevant where allegations concern a repeated practice. If every case is viewed entirely in isolation, nobody may see the overall pattern. One parent sees one report. One solicitor sees one case. One judge hears one dispute. One professional deals with one family. But a TD receiving more than 100 accounts can potentially observe similarities that are invisible when cases remain compartmentalised. This may explain why Durkan's accumulation of cases was so important. It does not, however, justify alleging without evidence that “the legal profession covered this up.” There may have been institutional defensiveness, fragmented responsibility, excessive confidentiality, professional reluctance to challenge colleagues, deficiencies in oversight, or simple failure to recognise a systemic pattern. Those possibilities deserve investigation. A deliberate conspiracy to conceal wrongdoing is a much more serious allegation and should only be made where evidence supports it. What an Independent Investigation Could Examine An appropriate independent review would not begin with the assumption that anybody committed wrongdoing. It would begin with the evidence. It could examine whether a sufficiently large anonymised sample of contested reports demonstrated recurring features; compare claims in reports with underlying records and source material; establish the professional qualifications of report writers; determine whether contradictory evidence was consistently excluded; identify whether particular terminology or diagnostic concepts repeatedly appeared without adequate evidential foundation; examine whether complaints concerning reports were ever made and how they were handled; determine whether the same professionals repeatedly appeared across cases; and establish whether any material was ever referred to Gardaí, regulators or other investigative authorities. Where deliberate deception was suspected, those particular files could then be referred to the appropriate authority. This would distinguish genuine professional disagreement from negligence, systemic methodological failure and potentially deliberate misconduct. The Role of the Legal Profession Solicitors, barristers and judges operate within a system in which they have different professional responsibilities. It would therefore be unfair and evidentially unsustainable to speak of “the legal profession” as a single body deliberately concealing what happened. However, it is entirely legitimate to ask harder institutional questions: Who saw these reports? Who challenged them? Who knew complaints had been made? Were concerns communicated from one case to another? Did professional confidentiality or the in camera regime inadvertently prevent recognition of recurring patterns? Were mechanisms available through which a lawyer who suspected deliberate deception could make an appropriate referral? Were those mechanisms used? If repeated warning signs existed, did any professional body undertake a pattern analysis? And once a national parliamentarian publicly said that he possessed more than 100 cases, who took responsibility for determining whether they disclosed something requiring investigation rather than simply reform? These are serious but fair questions. Conclusion Bernard Durkan appears to have performed an important democratic function. He repeatedly brought deeply troubling allegations concerning family-law processes into Dáil Éireann when individual parents may otherwise have had little means of exposing a possible systemic problem. He publicly warned about section 47 reports in October 2022. He continued raising the issue throughout the following years. By May 2023 he said he had more than 100 cases and had supplied a sample to the highest levels of Government. The Government subsequently commissioned research, produced a policy paper, undertook a major review of expert reports, generated 20 recommendations, funded implementation work and ultimately introduced judicial guidelines governing such reports in April 2026. Those developments demonstrate that the underlying systemic concerns were substantial enough to merit significant reform. But reform is not necessarily the same thing as investigation. The unresolved public-interest question remains: Did anybody independently examine the underlying cases to determine whether any reports were not merely wrong, inadequate or professionally deficient, but knowingly or deliberately misleading in circumstances capable of interfering with the administration of justice? If such an assessment has already taken place, the public record should, insofar as legally possible and while fully protecting children and families, clarify that fact. If it has not, there is a legitimate case for asking why not. The objective should not be a presumption of guilt against any professional. It should be the opposite: an independent examination of the evidence capable of distinguishing mistake from negligence, systemic failure from deliberate misconduct, and allegation from fact. Where children may have been permanently separated from parents as a consequence of expert evidence, nothing less than that level of scrutiny is warranted.