Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
Yesterday, gardaí arrested five men over the Limerick murders of Shane Geoghegan and Roy Collins. This is good news, but it won’t tackle the real causes of gang crime, writes sociologist Niamh Hourigan.
THE ‘PITCH FOR Shane’, a terracotta army created by ordinary Limerick citizens this month to celebrate the life of murder victim Shane Geoghegan, serves as a stark reminder of the continuing challenges posed by gangland crime in Limerick city.
However, a number of arrests by gardaí this week in the Geoghegan and Roy Collins murder investigations show how much has been achieved since 2008. The increasing number of gardaí policing the city, the establishment of an Emergency Response Unit and the installation of CCTV systems have all impacted on crime rates.
Community policing has been particularly successful in building better relationships between gardaí and residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Limerick. In this context, the most recent crime statistics for the mid-west for the 12 months ending in September 2012 – which show a marked and continuing decline in violent crime rates – deserve more fanfare than they have received.
Perhaps this lack of acclaim is linked to a fear of complacency in a city which has been hit hard by the current economic recession. During the Celtic Tiger boom, Limerick city possessed some of the most socially excluded districts in the Republic of Ireland. Reductions in welfare payments and deeps cuts to healthcare, education and juvenile justice projects are only likely to worsen this social exclusion. Limerick is also facing a growing heroin problem which has generated a raft of new concerns in relation to street crime, muggings and child protection.
Apart from the crime statistics, though, there are other reasons for hope. 2012 will see the amalgamation of Limerick city and county councils, which may lead to progress on the complex housing management issues which have bedevilled local authorities in the city since the 1960s. The new Joint Authority will also be in a stronger position to develop the commercial core of Limerick city, providing the jobs which are so necessary to preventing social exclusion.
However, there are some trenchant problems in Limerick which are not visible in local crime statistics. In August of this year, Fr Pat Hogan, parish priest in Southill, highlighted the continuing problems experienced by residents in his parish in relation to intimidation and anti-social behaviour. Within my book Understanding Limerick: Social Exclusion and Change, I highlighted the specific difficulties in tackling the anti-social behaviour of children under 12 in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
During the interviews conducted for my research on fear and feuding in the city, residents repeatedly indicated that the anti-social behaviour of young children was being exploited by gangs to gain territorial control over pockets of disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the city.
The age of criminal responsibility in Ireland at the moment is 12, therefore gardaí are not in a position to tackle the anti-social behaviour of the under-12s. Child protection services are not in operation in the evening and during the weekends when anti-social behaviour is at its most prevalent. It is possible that much of the good work being achieved by agencies like Limerick Regeneration will be undermined if measures to tackle the anti-social behaviour of the under-12s are not developed.
Another invisible issue which contributes significantly to social exclusion in Limerick city is moneylending.
In many disadvantaged families, deep poverty and stress leads to active addictions to alcohol, drugs, or gambling. In these households, money from welfare payments which should be devoted to providing food, heat and clothing for children can end up in the pockets of the local drug dealers or bookies. These families then turn to local money-lenders who charge extortionate interest rates. In some cases, these money-lenders will ‘keep their book’ for their social welfare entitlements, go with them to claim the entitlements, keep the money and keep the book until the debt is paid.
During the three years I spent researching the links between crime and social exclusion in Limerick, I found that this practice of illegal money-lending played a significant role in pushing vulnerable families deeper into poverty and in some cases, into criminal activity.
As cuts to welfare loom in the next budget, it is likely that even the more advantaged law-abiding families in disadvantaged communities – who are already struggling to make ends meet – will be pushed into the arms of moneylenders.
Of the many failures of the last government, one of the most significant was the failure to tackle financial exclusion in Irish society. Many law-abiding hard-working families in disadvantaged communities still have difficulties opening bank accounts and gaining access to credit and saving schemes because of stigma linked to their address or dependence on welfare payments.
In the UK, Gordon Brown, for all his failings, made active and concerted efforts to force banks to provide services to socially excluded citizens in British society by establishing a Financial Inclusion Fund and establishing a special taskforce to tackle financial exclusion. These measures were designed to specifically to prevent vulnerable families on benefits becoming prey for parasitic money-lenders.
While Irish banks seemed happy to flood the country with cheap cash during the Celtic Tiger boom, many residents in stigmatised neighbourhoods remained excluded from their services.
Now that Irish citizens have taken on the burden of paying for the irresponsible behaviour of Irish banks, is it not time that we insist that Irish banks also take a more active role in promoting financial inclusion and make their contribution to tackling poverty-based crime in Irish society?
Dr Niamh Hourigan is Lecturer and Head of Graduate Studies in Sociology at University College Cork. Her book Understanding Limerick: Social Exclusion and Change is published by Cork University Press.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Tell me, why did they not cut to music and deal with this lad off air? Why air it? Publicity maybe? To have news stories with their name attached floating about today? Like this one? I’m very dubious over the intentions of the people who allowed that to air.
Jay rang in and demanded that Jeremy air everything he had to say otherwise he would jump. What would you do in that situation?
It’s very easy to tell if there’s a radio on near the phone. It’s called feedback. No feedback, no radio and that works digitally too as far as I know? What should he have done? They had two options.
A. Cut to music and continued the call, dodge the bullet on the “are we on air” question and have the Gardai called by the support crew.
B. Continue to air it and bolster ratings and kudos from the public with the eventual gain of profit for the station.
Jay was listening to the show and wanted it to be heard on the show
So what else was fm 104 to do ?
He could have been listening on the phone. That would mean no feedback. Phones have pretty good radios apps now, and many older ones have small radio receivers in them. I hope he gets all the necessary help.
One of the most important guidelines that the media are asked to observe when reporting on suicide issues is not to sensationalise matters. Whatever about the DJ dealing with it the best he could, the radio station as a whole messed up big time.
Asking people to phone and text in with their opinions etc, and cutting to commercial breaks as it was all happening. Distasteful, inappropriate and completely irresponsible to allow it as part of the program.
4 all the dj knew that man coulda had a radio with him and if he heard the radio station cut him off air then he coulda jumped of the bridge… If you ask me they done good by keeping him busy till help got there..
I agree. It has also highlighted peoples attitudes to people who express thoughts of suicide. The HSE provide free training called ASIST and safeTALK in how to deal with situations of managing suicide ideation.
should never have been broadcast shame on fm104 for chasing ratings
From what I heard of the call jay was listening to the show on earphones while on the phone to jeremy.He wanted it broadcast so people would know how hard it has been for him to get the help he needed.
Just because he wanted it doesn’t mean that the station had to oblige. What if he had of jumped onto the road in front of a vehicle, while live on air? What effect would that of had on listeners; some of whom may be suffering with mental problems themselves?
I doubt the program would have been allowed to go out if it was a teenage girl on the phone threatening to cut her wrists. The circumstances last night made for good listening, and it’s naive to think that that didn’t play a part in the decision to air it.
We all agree it was a difficult situation,we dont have to agree if the station made the right one!I certainly wouldnt like to have been the decision maker last nite.they were damned if they did and damned if they didnt!
Reading all the comments bellow and listening to part of tonight’s radio show, I am shocked and what the country has come to. I am even more shocked that a national radio station would allow a person to attempt suicide live on air.
I do not buy into the suggestion the DJ did his best under the circumstances on the night. It was clear from the start that this guy was unstable for many reasons. It was mentioned below that apparently the guy was on air with them back in May after having been up on the bridge threatening the same thing. If that true it makes it even worse as surely they keep some sort of list of callers that are a risk on air. Why did he cut to ads mid-crisis? So the station revenue was important at this particular time. Somebody suggested he could not cut him off as he may have done it but it was okay to cut him off for the comercials. Give me a break! And how many copycat calls will there be over the next month?
I am sure as also suggested that this practiced is outlawed by the body responsible for radio. I know it is in the UK as a friend worked in the BBC and was telling me that they had a delay system to stop this kind of thing on live radio shows. It concerns me what would have happened if the guy really did take his life on the air. Would that have been entertaining radio? I think not and I am sure jobs would be lost.
I am aware that this show and others dangle on the edge of legality but on this occasion i think they went too far. It seems they took advantage and a risk that the guy wouldn’t do it and rolled with the publicity which is the most irresponsible radio broadcast I have ever heard on a national radio station. Yes suicide needs awareness but this is not the way to do it. The radio station have left themselves wide open for every unsettled person to call in and do the same. Will they allow live murders on next to top that?
Just to note, FM104 is local Dublin station, not a national one (although of course you can get it online anywhere). Also, the delay you speak of is a profanity delay, usually they give only about 8 seconds in which you can hang up on the caller and move on. Once the “Jay” got on air, he was threatening to jump if cut off, so a delay would not have solved the problem. Jeremy’s producer should have exercised their editorial judgement and not put the guy on in the first place.
The man is alive. Looks like the station made the right choice
They could easily have continued to talk to the person off air and played music, very simple to do with the level of automation in radio.
I think that the station were looking to boost ratings and the Programme Director knows that.
In fairness to the presenter, he was put in a difficult position and handled it well.
No doubt the DJ was in a difficult position but it shouldn’t have been aired, very distasteful on FM104′s behalf.
They could have cut the broadcast and went to music, something from R. Kelly would have been appropriate
This man needed emergency services
All the people giving out for it been aired, if he had of cut him off or went off air to speak and that lad had of jumped.. I can gaurentee you would be on here today giving him abuse because he caused the man to jump… He was put in a no win situation and dealt with it the best way he could… Until any of us are in that position we can not judge. Well done jeremy dixon
Katrina,
I did not hear the broadcast but from posts above I believe the presenter went to commercial breaks and also encouraged people to continue texting in opinions. Do you not think that is a bit strange given the circumstances?
Now it was a very very tricky position to be put in but I would question the stations motive in letting this man on air in the first place
I was listening robert he did gobto a lot of breaks to ring garda and such.. I personally never heard him say text in opinions .. He spent a whole hour or more talking to this lad…. Now im not sure who let him talk to the presenter but once he got on air he said if he was cut of he would jump plus he had knives on him and said he’d cut himself. So what was the presenter to do!! its not a chance i would be willing to take.
Yeah I don’t know, if they were that concerned for his safety I don’t think they would have been taking breaks? They were running the risk of a mentally unstable man thinking he had been taken off air?
It’s all just speculation but the cynic in me can’t let it go that he was let on air in the first place.
Hope the man gets himself sorted
I think fair play to FM104 if the guy demanded to be aired, otherwise he’d jump. Imagine they didn’t air it, and he jumped! Who would be blamed? The radio station. they did the right thing, and hopefully Jay is now getting the help he needs.
No right minded person would have blamed the station had the guy jumped. If he had jumped while live on air then things would have been a lot worse, the presenter would have had to carry that with him because he was acting as a councilor to the guy at the time. Nobody could have known what Jay’s true intentions were, and that’s why it should have been nipped in the bud early on.
The fact they kept cutting to commercials and asking folk to text in with their comments makes it even more abhorrent.
We can all have opinions in this and either answer can be right but the Presenter was the one talking to him and the last person to try and stop a man from ending his life.Thats not a position any of us would ever want to be put in and until we are,it’s very hard to be able to judge what the best thing to do was. Whatever about the producers of the show,the presenter made a spur of the moment decision and like Jonathan above said,kept him talking while the appropriate help arrived
Airing this on radio was highly inappropriate. Hopefully FM104 did not seize this opportunity Nd use the man for publicity.
Jay made the most important phone call of his life and if the show insulted anyone’s sensitivities was it not worth it all at the end of the day their was a life saved and hopefully Jay is now getting all the help he needs to well and strong to get on with his life.Come on folks the Radio Station did the right thing. A young life is here today and this may open up an honest and true debate own the subject of suicide.Talking about Suicide does not increase the numbers that take their own lives But it may save a few lives
From listening to it last night he just wanted attention. He didn’t sound like a man about to take his own life, even when passing the phone to his Dad he very normally passed the phone on “here”. Then his Dad was as equally calm/normal. And let’s be honest the bridge he picked, had he jumped I highly doubt it would of killed him.
@Snatcher and your qualifications are???
regardless of qualifications, even psychologists and psychiatrists do tend to apply textbook theory and bracket off individuals as ‘attention seekers’ like its the ‘boy who cried wolf” you could say until well… something does happen which totally throws their textbook back in the bin where it belongs. Their attitude makes matters worse and does not help to address the suicide issue. They’re not in my book fit for purpose. The majority of ‘proper’ experienced professionals know that just because someone talks about suicide doesn’t mean they’re looking for attention but is deemed a serious threat, everything is taken seriously because nobody ever knows. There are of course self harmers, constantly self harming, cutting themselves etc particularly young girls.
i have an idea what the mans frustrations are with, getting the right help. if you only knew, there are so called professionals working here with HSE that only care about their next paycheque. i’ve struggled, i’m still struggling with one or two of them. imagine, having to struggle with the people you expect to help you other than undermine you, dodge questions about what they say to you because they are that ‘dodgy’. tell you things like “theres no point in going to psychotherapy if you’re feeling suicidal” from a psychiatrist! “we can’t stop you from taking your own life” no such thing as telling the patient: “but we can try to stop you and help you recover?”
another one is the struggle to get forms requested by social welfare when in fact they should be dealing with the gps and psychiatrists directly when the person is not able to cope! cope with the backlash, their bad attitude to mental health patients who have difficulty speaking up for themselves, the reluctance to help them fill it in! you wouldn’t believe the background crap that goes on. was also asked by one “why does everybody want to be on disability?” THEY JUST DON’T GET IT. CONSTANTLY PULL PULL PULL AGAINST THE PERSON WHO HAS NEEDS AND NEEDS THESE SIMPLE THINGS TO HELP THEM GET BY WHILE THEY TRY TO GET THEIR LIFE BACK ON TRACK AND CONCENTRATE ON THERAPY NOT WHERE THEIR NEXT BIT OF FOOD COMES FROM. Another Occup therapist said to me: “well you know, we’re going through a recession and some people see getting on disability as an extra income” ???? WHAT?? what extra income? there is none! its the same rate as jobseekers! The judgemental uneducated insults i’ve had to bear from these yolks i’d write a book on it. There are many bullies and they’re in here too.
So another guy jumped into the river last night also, Reading early morning news this morning 2 bodies have been discovered ???
Both were not at the same location
Does it really matter how it was handled? The young lad did not take his life that night, thats whats important.
Its rather astonishing, these type are the very ones who will tell you for example that, just because one person did bad to you doesn’t mean the next one will etc yet if someone talks about harming themselves they’re an attention seeker just like the last one? like the one in the textbook? but this one may actually proceed which inevitably makes them different. These type are messed up wrong professionals if you ask me. They need help. Always getting it wrong. There are therapists out there that can make you worse, finding the right one is hard
Btw..Wrong bridge in article photo.. It was the footbridge further up nearer the hospital. It’s Jay’s preferred bridge, he’s up there every other week.
Well personally it’s never happened me in work that someone’s got on the phone & said they’re going to jump but I’m sure if they did, I would do my best to help them & I do think that’s what Jeremy did. I also think however that if you’re going to jump off a bridge, you don’t call a local radio station. He may be depressed. He may be in a dark place, but it’s an odd thing for someone who’s genuinely suicidal to do.
Eimear tell me what is ” Normal ” for a person contemplating suicide then
the man wanted everyone to know that the help he’s getting is not the help he should be getting. caught up in a system that is not working, where theres dodgy doctors pretending to help, waiting for their next pay cheque. The good therapists don’t come cheap. cut backs gives you trainee inexperienced psycho babblers who could spend 2 years in a room with a sick person and get nowhere. i’ve been to a counciller here about 10 times and all she did was take notes. i know what this man is going through, and hopefully someone out there GOOD ENOUGH to help him will find him.
Bernadette, I never used the phrase “normal” if you care to re-read nor would I. I didn’t discount the mans mental state as being in a bad place either. Please don’t mis-quote me needlessly.
@Eimear I know you did not say ” Normal” I am asking you as you said ” if you’re going to jump off a bridge you don’t call a radio station.”So my question is again what is ” normal ” for someone that is contemplating suicide?
The way I see it Jeremy Dixon done the right thing if he had to refuse to talk to jay it might have pushed jay over the edge as he would prob be thinking here is another person who won’t listen or help me , and no one should be on here criticising anybody because nobody knows what they would do until put into that situation themselves and as for that TD who got involved think he said the show was just trying to boost ratings well its the most listened to radio station in Ireland so it doesn’t need to and he was the one trying to make a name for himself he would be better off making sure that people like jay get the help that they need in the first place and not be criticising Jeremy for trying to help the poor man think its disgusting that a TD can give out about @jeremydixon104 when the likes of him and his cronies has the country in the state that it is
Totally irresponsible & reprehensible to broadcast this all in the name of improving ratings & ‘ entertainment’ -a new nadir reached in Irish Radio with this.
I agree with John Murray, and think the DJ did what he thought was best at the time. As he said, he wasn’t qualified to deal with that type of situation. So glad it didn’t end with the boy being hurt physically, as that would be a hard burden to bear for anyone.
I hope at this stage strategies have been put in place to prevent any future on-air sensationalism like this.
have your say