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.
IRELAND’S WOMEN’S HOCKEY team did not have to pay a levy of €550 each before the event, according to Sport Ireland and Minister for Transport and Sport Shane Ross.
Calls had been made to refund the levy to the women, after they reached today’s world cup final (which you can follow via the liveblog here). Peter Horgan, a Labour Party local area representative, had called on Sport Ireland to refund all of the Irish women’s hockey squad their €550 representational fee as a gesture of goodwill.
However, speaking to RTÉ Radio One’s This Week programme today John Treacy, CEO of Sport Ireland, said that the women did not have to pay such a levy. He said that the levy was stopped after the Rio 2016 Olympics.
Asked if it was true about the levy he said: “No. That is incorrect. There was a levy in place put in place by the governing body up to Rio. Sport Ireland have moved to make sure the levy isn’t paid anymore.”
He said similar issues regarding a levy would have previously been raised with paralympians. “They were fundraising themselves. We got the funding up to a level where that didn’t happen anymore,” said Treacy.
He said that for the last two years, funding had been provided to athletes. He said that €45,000 in expense money was provided to the Irish women’s hockey team. He said alongside this, €520k in high performance funding was given to them, along with €60k for both World Cup campaigns, €45k in terms of carding, and additional co-funding of €260k. He said Sport Ireland would love to give the team more but is limited by its budget.
Sport Ireland’s budget for high performance sport this year is around €10 million.
The government launched its latest sports policy last week, and in it promised to double funding to sport. Treacy said that investment is needed quickly in terms of high performance sport, particularly with the Tokyo Olympics coming up in 2020.
Minister Shane Ross aid that Hockey Ireland did not levy the players this year.
“While levies applied for international finals, and Olympics in the past, the actual funding by government through Sport Ireland provided for 2018 addressed the funding gap for 2018 World Cup,” he said. “The media reports regarding levying were inaccurate. Total funding for 2018 was €900,000, including €625,000 for high-performance in 2018.”
He said this included specific allocation support athletes – €45,00 for the Word Cup campaign and €60,000 in special grants. Total spending to Hockey Ireland for 2017-2918 is €1.81m.
“It is kind of being downplayed. People say €1.81m isn’t enough, I don’t know if it is. We can’t give money to everything, but we are just delighted with the result,” he said on Friday.
Ross added: “We will look to improve the funding for women in the sports policy, so we will particularly look at this as they have been so successful.”
We have also promised that we will spread the funds available for various sports in a more concentrated way for those that are successful rather than give it across the board to those that aren’t, so targeted and hockey, given their success will be part of the targeted funding. They are justifying in their success that they should be looked at for increased funding.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How bout longer sentences for the people committing the crimes and then in turn there will be less people needing to hide behind the screens
@Dlow Brown: careful, the liberal left brigade and their allies the Irish Council for Civil Liberties will have you shut down for hate speech!
@Damien Mooney: your an idiot the vast majority of people want longer sentences regardless of political leanings
@Kevin Finnegan: can please elect some of this vast majority so that they reflect they opinions of the vast majority.
@Dave Doyle: Judges aren’t elected.
@Lisa Saputo: the elected officials make laws….those laws can include mandatory minimum sentences or whatever the law makers set as the law. The law makers need to be tougher…IMHO. Then the judges will not be able to squirm out. We could very easily have a 3 strikes out law
@Dave Doyle: @Dave Doyle: well said. The ‘vast majority’ are happy to peddle faux outrage. Signing the latest petition on change.org to have Martin Nolan fired while banging furiously into their keyboards such inane comments as “there are no words”
“Should rot in hell”
“Suspended sentence a joke”
“Down with this sort of thing”
“Have they no homes to go to”
@Kevin Finnegan: ah right, so this elusive bunch of people known as ‘the majority of people’ elected you as their spokesman? What are you and your merry band of followers doing about lenient sentences then, apart from writing asinine, meaningless sentences into the journal.ie ? How many letters have you sent to the dept of justice and law reform, and the DPP herself, asking that lenient sentences be reviewed? Perhaps we could meet up and pursue a strategy, I’ve sent several so far this year with a few more ready to go.
Or are you happy to peddle your faux outrage on Facebook in the faint hope that Ms Loftus will log into the journal.ie and read your comments and discover the horror of Martin Nolan’s work?
@Damien Mooney: haha I’ve never met or talked to anybody who was like you know what our criminal justice system really does the job well why should people get long sentences sure just give them a slap on the wrist and it’ll be grand! And as to what I do about it I try my best to be informed and vote for someone who shares my belief that there needs to be serious reform. It’s gas that you started going of on all that when my original comment was about you basically saying only people on the right care about stuff like this
@Damien Mooney: haha faux outrage you know f&ck all about me but sure believe whatever you want and just smear people on the left to make yourself feel good
About time this has been the norm in the UK for years
@Sonya Couch Dillon: VERY TRUE, & also in fact, ( to save some extra, IMO, monies on the transport of Criminals, as they are mostly brought to & from the Courts by private securicor type firms ) Judges & Govenors can order a video-link from the prison to the Court, & that goes from your Tax evader to the more Heinous Murderer type crimes & Screens & video-link testimonies have been in use in the UK for some time now, although there is some speculation that the “evidence” may not be as pure as an actual person in the Courtroom as opposed to a “link”.https://www.eyenetwork.com/judicial/court-video-link/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxtPYBRD6ARIsAKs1XJ5wX0SUMQncL-BPsfdJr4WF7O-F_chW3TUUB9Y0sWu05GVoEJE1GcYaAvHVEALw_wcB
@Michael Kelly: Video link in operation here too, but our system is slightly different. A prisoner has a right to be present . As for the private security companies , too easily infiltrated by crime gangs.
@Michael Kelly: Careful there, You’re interfering with the super incomes of the legal profession!
Now get wrid of the stupid “reducing”of sentences and let them serve a full sentence. Also lock up repeat offenders for robbery, serious assault or any repeated crimes.
@Mick12:
The reduction in the sentence on foot of a plea of guilty is pragmatism on the part of judges to reduce the waiting list of cases. The reduction is relatively small and criminals convicted of serious sexual offences are listed on the sex offenders register so that there are legal grounds for monitoring them closely after they have served their sentences.
@Mick12: Will never happen here. Sure would’nt it be an injustice not to fill the pockets of the poor auld Ambulance chasers.
Long over due ,glad to see some one is listening .
More prisons please and longer sentences. That is what people want. Imagine the money saved from criminals not being able to father children, save on children’s allowance, save on future criminals ever being born, save on council housing, save on dole money for future offspring etc etc.
Indeed , aren’t we all behind a screen giving evidence in some way
@Noel Walsh: deep
@Noel Walsh: give it a rest noel
@Noel Walsh: Did you forget to switch accounts before replying to yourself?
@Free comment ratings: Ha ! He’s got you there Noel !
This is all about gradually changing the rules of evidence in order to tip the balance against the accused (who in any just society must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law). What it will lead to is the thwarting of justice, where more innocent men, who have been maliciously (falsely) accused of rape or sexual assault, will be convicted and their lives destroyed. It is the holy grail of feminazis and the large misandrist element within the media, and certain political organisations, to prevent the full and fair cross-examination of complainants in court (such cross-examination being necessary in order to get to the truth and a just outcome in such cases). It is all part of the downgrading of evidence and examination.
Where man-haters want to get to is the point where all requirements for evidence and examination are dispensed with, and a potentially innocent man’s life can be destroyed in law simply by the word of a woman, even if she is not telling the truth.
I agree entirely with the contents of the ministerial order (and a new sentencing guideline) however the aspect preventing cross examination (as reported above) is incompatible with Art 38.1 and the established dicta in [In Re Haughey, 1IR1, 1971] and European conventions. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a challenge to that section of the order alone. Imagine acting for yourself and, in your own defense you weren’t allowed ask certain questions or challenge the prosecution evidence or put your own case forward in rebuttal. Just doesn’t seem right.
Even the headline in this media article is deliberately misleading. Complainants during such cases are not “victims”, as in the middle of a trial (particularly trials involving alleged sexual offences) it has not yet been proven that a crime has been committed, nor that the accused has done it. One only becomes a “victim” if it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in court that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is guilty.
have your say