Indymedia Ireland is a volunteer-run non-commercial open publishing website for local and international news, opinion & analysis, press releases and events. Its main objective is to enable the public to participate in reporting and analysis of the news and other important events and aspects of our daily lives and thereby give a voice to people.
Fraud and mismanagement at University College Cork Thu Aug 28, 2025 18:30 | Calli Morganite
UCC has paid huge sums to a criminal professor
This story is not for republication. I bear responsibility for the things I write. I have read the guidelines and understand that I must not write anything untrue, and I won't.
This is a public interest story about a complete failure of governance and management at UCC.
Deliberate Design Flaw In ChatGPT-5 Sun Aug 17, 2025 08:04 | Mind Agent
Socratic Dialog Between ChatGPT-5 and Mind Agent Reveals Fatal and Deliberate 'Design by Construction' Flaw
This design flaw in ChatGPT-5's default epistemic mode subverts what the much touted ChatGPT-5 can do... so long as the flaw is not tickled, any usage should be fine---The epistemological question is: how would anyone in the public, includes you reading this (since no one is all knowing), in an unfamiliar domain know whether or not the flaw has been tickled when seeking information or understanding of a domain without prior knowledge of that domain???!
This analysis is a pretty unique and significant contribution to the space of empirical evaluation of LLMs that exist in AI public world... at least thus far, as far as I am aware! For what it's worth--as if anyone in the ChatGPT universe cares as they pile up on using the "PhD level scholar in your pocket".
According to GPT-5, and according to my tests, this flaw exists in all LLMs... What is revealing is the deduction GPT-5 made: Why ?design choice? starts looking like ?deliberate flaw?.
People are paying $200 a month to not just ChatGPT, but all major LLMs have similar Pro pricing! I bet they, like the normal user of free ChatGPT, stay in LLM's default mode where the flaw manifests itself. As it did in this evaluation.
AI Reach: Gemini Reasoning Question of God Sat Aug 02, 2025 20:00 | Mind Agent
Evaluating Semantic Reasoning Capability of AI Chatbot on Ontologically Deep Abstract (bias neutral) Thought
I have been evaluating AI Chatbot agents for their epistemic limits over the past two months, and have tested all major AI Agents, ChatGPT, Grok, Claude, Perplexity, and DeepSeek, for their epistemic limits and their negative impact as information gate-keepers.... Today I decided to test for how AI could be the boon for humanity in other positive areas, such as in completely abstract realms, such as metaphysical thought. Meaning, I wanted to test the LLMs for Positives beyond what most researchers benchmark these for, or have expressed in the approx. 2500 Turing tests in Humanity?s Last Exam.. And I chose as my first candidate, Google DeepMind's Gemini as I had not evaluated it before on anything.
Israeli Human Rights Group B'Tselem finally Admits It is Genocide releasing Our Genocide report Fri Aug 01, 2025 23:54 | 1 of indy
We have all known it for over 2 years that it is a genocide in Gaza
Israeli human rights group B'Tselem has finally admitted what everyone else outside Israel has known for two years is that the Israeli state is carrying out a genocide in Gaza
Western governments like the USA are complicit in it as they have been supplying the huge bombs and missiles used by Israel and dropped on innocent civilians in Gaza. One phone call from the USA regime could have ended it at any point. However many other countries are complicity with their tacit approval and neighboring Arab countries have been pretty spinless too in their support
With the release of this report titled: Our Genocide -there is a good chance this will make it okay for more people within Israel itself to speak out and do something about it despite the fact that many there are actually in support of the Gaza
China?s CITY WIDE CASH SEIZURES Begin ? ATMs Frozen, Digital Yuan FORCED Overnight Wed Jul 30, 2025 21:40 | 1 of indy
This story is unverified but it is very instructive of what will happen when cash is removed
THIS STORY IS UNVERIFIED BUT PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEO OR READ THE TRANSCRIPT AS IT GIVES AN VERY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT A CASHLESS SOCIETY WILL LOOK LIKE. And it ain't pretty
A single video report has come out of China claiming China's biggest cities are now cashless, not by choice, but by force. The report goes on to claim ATMs have gone dark, vaults are being emptied. And overnight (July 20 into 21), the digital yuan is the only currency allowed.
The Saker >>
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
RTEs Sarah McInerney ? Fianna Fail?supporter? Anthony
Joe Duffy is dishonest and untrustworthy Anthony
Robert Watt complaint: Time for decision by SIPO Anthony
RTE in breach of its own editorial principles Anthony
Waiting for SIPO Anthony
Public Inquiry >>
Parse failure for http://humanrights.ie/feed/.
Last Retry Wednesday October 01, 2025 23:10
Eurostar Unveils Gender-Neutral Uniform for Staff Wed Oct 01, 2025 19:00 | Will Jones
Eurostar has unveiled its first gender-neutral uniform, introducing a collection featuring skirts, trousers and Dr Martens boots designed to be "interchangeable and made to fit all genders".
The post Eurostar Unveils Gender-Neutral Uniform for Staff appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Fact-Checking Starmer?s Claim That Brexit Created the Small Boats Crisis Wed Oct 01, 2025 17:30 | Will Jones
Keir Starmer has claimed that Brexit created the small boats crisis and the migrant boats should be called 'Farage boats'. This is nonsense, says David Barrett, and even Oxford University's Migration Observatory agrees.
The post Fact-Checking Starmer’s Claim That Brexit Created the Small Boats Crisis appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Why is ?Pandemic Preparedness? a Major Theme of the New US Global Health Strategy? Wed Oct 01, 2025 15:43 | Dr David Bell
Why is 'pandemic preparedness' a major theme of the US Government's new 'America First' Global Health Strategy, asks Dr David Bell. There are some sound public health principles in there, but the 'pandemic' con lives on.
The post Why is ‘Pandemic Preparedness’ a Major Theme of the New US Global Health Strategy? appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Ed Miliband Pledges Legislation to Ban Fracking ?Forever? Wed Oct 01, 2025 13:22 | Will Jones
With energy bills heading skywards and renewable energy investment on the ropes, Ed Miliband's conference crowd-pleaser was to pledge a law to ban fracking 'forever' ? and sabotage a future Reform administration.
The post Ed Miliband Pledges Legislation to Ban Fracking ‘Forever’ appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Lammy Backtracks on Claim Farage ?Once Flirted With Hitler Youth? Wed Oct 01, 2025 11:21 | Will Jones
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy has been forced to row back on his bizarre claim that Nigel Farage "once flirted with the Hitler Youth", which Farage has denied.
The post Lammy Backtracks on Claim Farage “Once Flirted With Hitler Youth” appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Lockdown Skeptics >>
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (16 of 16)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16Leaflet published by Republican Sinn Féin
The Lisbon Treaty lays the basis for the creation of a European super state; already 80% of 26-County domestic law is subservient to EU laws and directives.
• The Lisbon Treaty introduces a clause which gives the EU Council of ministers the right to extend its powers without the need for a further treaty
• The Lisbon Treaty will remove the requirement for any further extension of EU power to be voted on by the Irish people in referenda
• The Lisbon Treaty paves the way for the creation of an EU army. Already EU military staffs EU 'Battle groups' have been set up which can operate 2,500 miles outside the borders of the EU. The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution will militarise the EU even, committing the 26-County State to a 'mutual - defence' commitment and removing the need for a referendum in the future on any new commitments to EU defence.
• Whilst health services such as cancer care in the 26 Counties face huge cuts in essential funding provision is being made for increased military spending to meet EU military commitments under the Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution.
•The presence of 26-County troops in Chad, supporting a French colonial proxy war with China - who are propping up the regime in neighbouring Sudan- over oil reserves, highlights the nature of the military "tasks" that the 26-County state will be expected to perform.Almost 100 years after the First World War, is yet another generation of Irish people to be sacrificed on foreign battlefields in the interests of European capitalism and imperialism?
• The Lisbon Treaty represents an attack on both political and economic
democracy.
• This leads to a society where the needs of the 'market' are placed over all others, including the right to a job and a decent wage, where the best public services only go to those who can pay the most
•The 'Laval ruling' of the European Court of Justice set the "free movement of goods and services" as superior to the right of workers to strike. Again the Lisbon Treaty will further this agenda, placing competition above the rights of working people.
• By voting NO to the Lisbon Treaty you are opposing the creation of an
undemocratic superstate, increased militarisation, the erosion of neutrality, the privatisation of public services and unfettered capitalism.
Republican Sinn Féin, 223 Parnell St, Dublin 1
Tel: 8729747; e-mail: saoirse@iol.ie; web: rsf.ie
The aspect of international law concerning the Lisbon Treaty unfolds a serious international conflict even at the pre-Lisbon stage, and, as a basis for an international litigation case may even invalidate a "yes" outcome of the referendum. (In my view the 'yes' outcome is not impossible under the ongoing uniquely overwhelming mass-media/government propaganda of blatantly false statements about the treaty.)
Similarly to the unconstitutional practices of the national parliaments in most of the member states to adjust the domestic law to serve the interests of the EU-federalism, rather than obeying the national laws, the very same deviation from the extant basis of the law can be captured on an international level. The Lisbon Treaty itself, specifically, Declaration 17. reveals this:
"At the time of the first judgment of this established case law … there was no mention of primacy in the treaty. It is still the case today. The fact that the principle of primacy will not be included in the future treaty shall not in any way change the existence of the principle and the existing case-law of the Court of Justice." (FINAL ACT (2007/C 306/02): 17. Declaration concerning primacy)
According to this declaration it is not necessary to stipulate the primacy of the Union law in the present and the future EU-treaties, because the primacy of the Union law is already in effect (!) .
First, this reasoning is a profoundly dishonest way to make a legally binding statement by avoiding including such statement in the treaty in a straightforward fashion.
Second, the primacy of the Union law determines the overall primacy of the Union over the member states, because the legislative and legal function is the very basis of all other state functions, and it is the primacy of the law that will ultimately determine the control of one political unit over another in every possible aspect: the political, financial, economical, social, etc.
Third, this declaration clearly claims that the EU has been following and will follow the practice of placing the Union law above national laws without existing contractual basis. By such a statement, however, the EU has admitted that it has been continually breaching international laws by positioning itself with a sovereign legislative function above other sovereign countries without any prior international agreements. In essence, this declaration attempts to legalise what is illegal by retrospectively legalising former illegal acts of arbitrarily overriding existing international agreements, and it is an attempt to maintain legality of the current illegal status quo, claiming that this practice will remain in place, despite the fact that the lack of contractual basis is still the case.
Urging the ratification – either with or without referendums – of an international treaty that contains such provision is itself the abolition of the very basis of the international law. Abolition of the guiding principles of international laws on constitutional and sovereignty-related terms, such as arbitrarily overruling the laws and citizens' rights of sovereign countries, entails a serious international conflict and is already a valid basis for an international litigation case.
Why is it there seems to be no mention so far in any of the Lisbon Treaty debates about the Global Security Fund?
According to Ashley Mote MEP, this very large "slush fund", which is allegedly operated from Brussels, and created by Lord Rothschild, is being used for "geopolitical engineering purposes". (See Mr Mote asking his question at http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/viewvideo.php?sec=view&vide...id=43 )
I'm wondering if such "geopolitical engineering purposes" might include a "YES" result in the June12th Referendum -- by ANY means?
That's what slush funds are for surely?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+Security+Fu...earch
It is among the headline news today that Cowen and his government enjoys a rapidly increasing popularity.
The first question that comes to mind is:
Isn't it time for the government to provide proper and full information on the new constitution of Ireland and of Europe (Lisbon Treaty), which will determine the future of Ireland and of ca 500 million citizens, rather than for testing the efficiency in reaching popularity by keeping the voters in ignorance?
The propaganda recently launched by the government in support of the new federal EU constitution nicknamed as “Lisbon Treaty”, has failed to actually attach the text of the Treaty to its claims. The voters will be called to submit their votes on a constitutional treaty that is not available for reading as of today, less than a month before the referendum.
The 272 pages on the widely advertised website (www.lisbontreaty2008.ie) include ONLY the amendments of the existing EU treaties; however the website does not offer the text base modified by these amendments, and does not offer a consolidated presentation of these texts. How can the voters be expected to make a decision on a treaty that they we will never even see in full, only scattered fragments of it?
On the other hand, a consolidated -readable and full- version of the Treaty has been made available by a "NO to Lisbon" organisation, Libertas:
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/233/128/
The second inevitable question is this:
What would be the result of the poll if the voters would be informed that the pro-Lisbon Cowen-government is ready to give up Ireland's neutrality under Lisbon?
The third question:
How can we trust a government that after reading the above still claims that the Lisbon Treaty will not affect Ireland's neutrality?
The fourth:
Has anyone from the government and/or from the 'yes' side ever opened and actually attempted to read the treaty?
.
"How can we trust this government?"
We can't -- absolutely 100% not. Keep in mind why Bertie Ahern was forced to quit his job as prime minister just a few weeks ago. It was not for being trustworthy was it?
And neither can we trust the main opposition parties either.
All the vast majority of our elected "public servants" now want to do is make themselves more secure in their overpaid "jobs" (as the puppets and lapdogs of the tin-gods they kowtow to), and to get themselves yet more cosy in parliament with bigger expenses and so on.
Once they get what they want, then it's to hell with the voters they con into voting "Yes" for Lisbon, and who they just see as stupid gobshites that fully deserve to be conned.
The really freightening thing is that might actually have a point?
"How can we trust a government that after reading the above still claims that the Lisbon Treaty will not affect Ireland's neutrality?"
You are quite wrong. Ireland's neutrality refers to non-membership of military organisations only. It does not mean we are constrained in adopting common positions on foreign policy issues with other EU Member States. There is nothing in the text you quoted which impinges on neutrality as it has operated since 1939 nor that substantially breaks new ground on practice in relation to community external policy since accession in 1973. To assert otherwise is groundless scaremongering.
- reply to "Sceptic"
Losing neutrality by sharing foreign policy with other states which are NOT neutral, is the very same in effect as losing neutrality by being the member of any military organisation. Note: under Lisbon the EU would be established as an organisation with high military ambitions and with such a military-centered mind that even its constitution, the Lisbon Treaty, is heavily preoccupied with organising the EU's armed forces.
Ireland under Lisbon would be obliged to support the Union’s external and security policy actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity and to comply with the Union’s action in this area. And this is not possible without Ireland's giving up its current status of neutrality.
For a meaningful referendum we would need much wider publicity of the excellent works of Sinn Féin, the National Platform, Libertas and the other NO groups.
Friendly dogs can be trusted because there's no deceit in dogs and no hidden agendas - but very few people can match the dog's standard of honesty, and many fewer still of those who are politicians.
From their viewpoint, politicians spin their lies (and sustain them) as a normal and "healthy" part of their trade.
Many, including the most senior, will admit (in private) -- and even boast sometimes -- that they simply have to lie, and that there's no way out of it for them.
Poor things. How awful that such heavy sacrifices should be demanded of anybody "in the line of duty" towards their fellows.
The Lisbon Treaty Referendum provides voters in the Republic of Ireland with a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to give this present set of corrupt parasites - as crooked and twisted as ivy growing up an oak - an "all-merciful" kick up the arse.
Now's the time to start showing the politicians and other "public servants" who's really in charge, and that there's still such a thing as "government of the people, by the people, for the people".
Genuine democracy in other words -- which is something entirely different to the "wolf in sheep's clothing" type of "elected dictatorship" and associated tyranny we now have, and which will be greatly boosted by anybody crazy enough to vote for the "Lisbon Treaty" piece of verbal rubbish.
Where are you getting your understanding of the actual meaning and reality of the policy of neutrality (as opposed perhaps to what you think it should be). The neutrality policy adopted does NOT prevent the adoption of common EU positions. If you insist that it does then neutrality must not have been real since accession in 1973 and the Lisbon Treaty will not alter anything substantial.
Where is it written or declared officially or enshrined in law or treaty or anywhere that Ireland cannot adopt common positions on foreign policy with its EU partners? Give a source for this contention of yours.
To Howard Holby (see at Sat May 17, 2008 17:27 above)
Ireland has already lost its neutrality under Bertie Ahern, has it not? -- thanks to the arrangements at Shannon Airport regarding US military aircraft facilities he has provided?
Only joining one of the belligerent blocks of nations in the second world war would materially have constituted a breach of the neutrality policy adopted in 1939 and that could have been changed by Government Decision plus Dáil decision if there was an actual decision to declare war. (Assuming we had not been attacked first.)
Post 1949 and codified in the Nice 2 constitutional amendment neutrality means not joining a military alliance like NATO or the Warsaw pact. But that does not preclude refuelling stopovers being approved.
The policy of neutrality refers to military neutrality only and even then it is confined to mutual defence pacts such as NATO. It does not apply to other military matters nor to taking political positions whether jointly with other nations or not.
As such there is nothing whatever in the Lisbon Treaty that affects the policy or neutrality.
In reply to Secptic.
There is no such thing in law as military neutrality. This is only a silly concept developed by people who are in favour of destroying the policy of Irish neutrality, a policy which has already been terminated by the decision of the Ahern Government to allow over one million US troops use Shannon Airport on their way to and from their Imperialist war in Iraq in contravention of the 1907 Hague Convention which defines in international law the rights and responsibilities of a neutral state.
The Defence and Solidarity Clauses in the Renamed EU Constitution(the Lisbon Treaty) on their own only deepen the process by which this state is being integrated into the EU/US/NATO military structures, let alone all the other military provisions.
For more information go to the PANA web site: www.pana.ie
“The State shall not adopt a decision taken by the European Council to establish a common defence pursuant to Article 1.2 of the Treaty referred to in subsection 7 of this section where that common defence would include the State.”
There is such a thing as forms of military neutrality and this is the article in the constitution (29.4.9) which expresses it. There is no other legal expression of neutrality in Irish law that exists and it is quite clear that neither the provision of stopover facilities nor the adoption of common EU positions (excepting common defence pacts) whether before or after the Lisbon Treaty will make the slightest difference to the substance of this neutrality.
Where is the statutory or other legal base for your rather expansive conception of neutrality? There isn't any.
I am open to correction but it never seemed to me that the Irish policy of neutrality has any present connection with the Hague Convention provisions on the responsibilities of neutral states which refer to the obligations of declared neutrals in specific conflicts. It would only have been applicable in World War II which was the only time it was invoked.
It is wrong and deceptive to be trying to link the Hague Convention to either the Shannon stopover issue or the Lisbon Treaty. Neither have anything to do with the reality of Irish neutrality.
To those who are still wondering why and how Ireland would give up neutrality under Lisbon:
The quoted parts of the Lisbon Treaty are the very evidence that the member states would be obliged to follow the military policies of the EU. By ratifying the treaty Ireland would revoke its chance to even have a say on its own neutral level.
Beyond this consideration on a more general level: by a 'yes' referendum outcome Ireland would NOT only give up military neutrality but would give up its independent country status altogether, which includes giving up neutrality in all aspects of a political state.
Further readings on this:
Our future under a ratified Lisbon Treaty – I.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87683
What does the government hide by hiding the Lisbon Treaty?
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87595