He followed a group of older children but changed his mind and waited for almost 40 minutes until a group of junior and senior infants lined up at the railings
In relative terms, that might be
2 Likes
She got desperate injuries herself…do I remember right did the deliveroo driver get a fortune out of a gofundme…I don’t remember this lady getting the same
2 Likes
Oh ffs
I was listening to Shattered Lives earlier with Mick the hack and Paul Healy and they said two very interesting things about Bouchaker.
-
Healy was in court the day they played the CCTV video of the attack, with Bouchakar clearly seen lunging and stabbing the kids. He said most of the court room was in tears and one male member of the jury in particular in the front row had floods of tears streaming down his face throughout the showing of the attack. Bouchaker he said was laughing through the footage of the attack.
-
Healy’s prison sources have said that Bouchaker is the most difficult prisoner they’ve ever dealt with.
3 Likes
It would be erroneous of the prison officers not to be erroneous.
60 seconds would be sufficient
1 Like
Why don’t they just knock the shite out of him or leave him unattended long enough for some of his fellow inmates to get him?
1 Like
That’s quite slanderous against the noble profession
1 Like
same dude wants Neil Doak at 10 for Ireland
I meant if we’re really stuck during the July games.
1 Like
Are we giving up on big Ev?
Brah I just watched 20 minutes of Gideon Wood on Saturday, you could be right
Supermac’s awarded €96,000 over breach of franchise agreement
About 60% of the chain’s restaurants in Ireland are operated by franchisees
Expand
A former Supermac’s franchisee must pay over €96,000 in damages to the fast food chain over a breach of their franchise agreement, the High Court has ruled. File photograph: Supermacs.ie
Wed Jul 01 2026 - 18:31• 3 MIN READ
A former Supermac’s franchisee must pay over €96,000 in damages to the fast food chain over a breach of their franchise agreement, the High Court has ruled.
Supermac’s Ireland Ltd sued Watchford Ltd, claiming the franchisee was in breach of their agreement arising from unpaid fees.
Watchford, an entity controlled by couple John and Mary Lyons, formerly operated a Supermac’s franchise at two premises in Limerick – one on the Ennis Road, and the other at Dooradoyle. The former restaurant opened in 1995, while the latter began trading in 2003.
Watchford made a counterclaim in the proceedings for overpaid restaurant equipment fees.
READ MORE
[
Harry Kane double rescues England after DR Congo threaten huge World Cup shock
](Harry Kane double rescues England after DR Congo threaten huge World Cup shock – The Irish Times)
[
Parnell Square attacker Riad Bouchaker found guilty of attempted murder of three children
](Parnell Square attacker Riad Bouchaker found guilty of attempted murder of three children – The Irish Times)
[
Spain crash victims were excited to be going on holiday, Mullingar locals say
](Spain crash victims were excited to be going on holiday, Mullingar locals say – The Irish Times)
[
Ukraine refuses Irish offer of armoured combat vehicles
](Ukraine refuses Irish offer of armoured combat vehicles – The Irish Times)
About 60 per cent of Supermac’s restaurants in Ireland are operated by franchisees. Franchisees pay a fee to Supermac’s to benefit from use of the Supermac’s brand, marketing and operational support. The fee is calculated as a percentage of an individual restaurant’s monthly turnover.
In a judgment published this week, Judge David Keane noted that “perhaps surprisingly” there was no written agreement underpinning the franchise arrangement between Supermac’s and Watchford.
Learn more
The 9 per cent VAT rate has been welcomed by restaurants but does the hospitality sector actually need it?
Listen | 39:12
Both restaurants operated successfully regardless, the judge said, and noted that Watchford recorded an aggregate turnover in excess of €47 million at the Ennis Road premises between 1995 and 2018.
The dispute before the court arose from Watchford’s decision, from August 2018, to reduce its monthly payments to Supermac’s from 10 per cent of its turnover to 7 per cent of its turnover at the Ennis Road premises.
This was in circumstances where Watchford previously asserted the 3 per cent difference was an equipment fee, and was only owed to Supermac’s when the amount paid to Supermac’s cumulatively equalled the value of the restaurant’s fit out and refurbishment works, the judge said.
In the alternative, the 3 per cent fee was subject to a rebate in the event of payments exceeding the value of the fit out and refurbishments, Watchford claimed.
Watchford also asserted that agreement to any further fit out or refurbishment of the Ennis Road store was contingent on a waiver of the 3 per cent fee.
Supermac’s opposed this, and maintained that the appropriate payment was an “undifferentiated” 10 per cent franchise fee.
Watchford wrote to Supermac’s in August 2018, stating that on account of Supermac’s failure to refurbish the Ennis Road restaurant, Watchford was ceasing the 3 per cent fee payments.
In July 2019, Supermac’s terminated the Watchford franchises.
Supermac’s sued, claiming Watchford owed €106,505.02 in unpaid franchise fees and other related fees.
Watchford made a counterclaim for €907,000, arising from what it said were overpayments on equipment fees.
The judge found that on the balance of probabilities, the correct fee owed by Watchford to Supermac’s was a “single, undifferentiated franchise fee” of 10 per cent of the monthly turnover.
The judge said he accepted the evidence of Supermac’s boss Pat McDonagh, “across all of the restaurant premises it owns” – which included the Ennis Road store – “Supermac’s charges a franchise fee of 10 per cent of turnover”.
At restaurants where Supermac’s does not own the premises, it charges a 6 or 7 per cent franchise fee, according to McDonagh, the judge noted.
The judge said that while he did not doubt the honesty and sincerity of John Lyons’ belief that the parties agreed to a 7 per cent franchise fee and 3 per cent equipment fee, he said he was “not persuaded that [Lyons] is correct in that regard”.
The judge found further the oral franchise agreement between the parties provided that the 10 per cent fee be paid without regard to the costs of works carried out at the Ennis Road premises.
By unilaterally reducing its payments from 10 per cent to 7 per cent, Watchford breached the agreemeNt between the parties, the judge found.
The judge also dismissed Watchford’s counterclaim.
The judge said he would grant judgment to Supermac’s in the sum of €96,263.84.
Listening to reporting this morning, it seems this is the result of a brain injury.
A sad enough auld story. John is an ok sort. Got my first job inside there. As far as I know, him and MacDonagh were great pals but it’s all turned quite ugly. Think all the court proceedings have taken their toll on Lyons. I’d say MacDonagh is so used to courtrooms that it’s knocked fuckall out of him
1 Like
We were over there with a large group of kids last week for July provision
There’s a Supermacs van parked outside, the staff in the Bowling alley wear Supermacs uniforms 
MacDonagh owns the bowling alley
Solicitor launches High Court challenge to new ‘unjust’ criminal legal aid model
Under the new payment model, solicitors will receive a flat one-off legal aid fee of €520 irrespective of how many appearances they make to represent a client in District Court cases
Thu, 02 Jul, 2026 - 17:42
Ann O’Loughlin
A solicitor has launched a High Court challenge to a controversial new criminal legal aid payment model for the District Court.
The new model, which came into effect this week, has led to a severe backlash from solicitors and impacted work in the criminal justice system.
John Quinn, a lawyer at John M Quinn & Co Solicitor, is seeking an order quashing the statutory instrument underpinning the new regulations. He is suing the office of the Minister for Justice, with the Law Society of Ireland a notice party to the action.
Under the new payment model, solicitors will receive a flat one-off legal aid fee of €520 irrespective of how many appearances they make to represent a client in District Court cases.
The previous criminal legal aid payments system was based on the number of appearances by a solicitor in court in a case.
On Thursday, Mr Justice Anthony Barr gave permission to Fechín McDonagh, senior counsel for Mr Quinn, to pursue a judicial review challenge to the regulations. The case came before the judge on an ex-parte basis, with only one side represented in court.
Mr McDonagh, appearing with barrister Karl Monahan, submitted that the new regulations had “upended” the system of criminal legal aid, bringing dramatic and far-reaching changes affecting the vast majority of accused persons in the criminal justice system and solicitors.
The judge said the case was a matter of considerable public interest, relevant to solicitors and the operation of the criminal justice system. Therefore, the judge said, it was an issue that needed to be determined as soon as possible.
John Quinn’s arguments
In his court documents, Mr Quinn, who works primarily in the criminal justice system, said the vast majority of his clients are of insufficient means to pay for their own legal representation. He said his constitutionally protected right to earn a living is “dependent” on the legal aid scheme.
He submits that the new regulations are in breach of his right to earn a living, as they provide for a flat, one-off fee “to cover multiple, potentially unrelated, alleged offences, irrespective of the number of such alleged offence, and irrespective of the number of court appearances required in respect of the proceedings in question”.
The regulations also breach his right to earn a living because they provide for payment only when a final order is made in a given case, he submits. This deprives him of prompt payment for his work, and may — in certain circumstances — result in him receiving no remuneration for his work, he claims.
He submits the regulations are “arbitrary, capricious, and unjust”.
Mr Quinn also claims that the regulations are incompatible with the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962, which provides for the assignment of a legal aid certificate in respect of a single offence, and not for the assignment of a legal aid certificate in respect of multiple offences.
Mr Quinn is seeking an interim stay on the regulations coming into effect. The case will return on Tuesday.
Cunt needs to read the room. Apply his skills in other aspects if capital his sole motivation.
2 Likes
