The bakery at Dublin’s Mountjoy Prison has been shut down amid concerns that gangland figures were using it as a route for delivering drugs.

The disclosure appears in internal Irish Prison Service (IPS) documents obtained by the Irish Mail on Sunday under the Freedom of Information Act.

Mountjoy’s bakery had previously been held up as a model for prisons in other jurisdictions, including Hydebank Wood prison for women and young offenders in Belfast.

However, the FOI records describe the bakery, which supplies bread to prisons across Dublin, as a known ‘channel for contraband’.

The description was included in an October 2024 email from Mary Leydon, a governor in the IPS Human Resources Directorate.

Her email was sent while IPS management and staff were negotiating the bakery’s closure.

Alongside identifying the facility as a source of contraband, Ms Leydon said it had been linked to ‘H&S [health and safety] concerns over the years’, adding that management had raised ‘serious concerns’.

‘This was a challenging negotiation process but we believe after years attempting it, we have finally achieved its closure,’ Ms Leydon wrote.

She said the shutdown would take place ‘on phased basis over 12-18 months’, allowing other prisons time to secure an alternative supplier.

The decision to close the bakery was first disclosed publicly in the Dáil a year later, in November 2025, by Justice Minister Jim O’Callaghan.

Mr O’Callaghan did not mention specific contraband concerns, but referred generally to the ‘enhanced security’ that would result from the closure.

Replying to a parliamentary question from Sinn Féin TD Matt Carthy, Mr O’Callaghan said supplying bread to Dublin’s prisons through Mountjoy’s bakery cost €660,000 a year—€110,000 more than using a commercial provider.

He said the bakery would instead become ‘a training facility to deliver certified training in baking skills to people in custody.’

Several high-profile prisoners have worked in the Mountjoy bakery over the years, including convicted boom-time thief Michael Lynn and Mr Moonlight murderer Patrick Quirke. There is no suggestion that either man was involved in moving contraband through the facility.

Prison sources said the bakery was regarded as a highly sought-after job among inmates. Located on the same footprint as the kitchen, just off E Division, its goods gate is about 30 to 40 metres from Mountjoy’s main entrance.

‘The bakery in Mountjoy would have been something that was highly successful back in the day,’ one officer told the MoS.

‘It produced a lot of good bread and a lot of work for prisoners as well. It gave them something useful to be doing.’

MORE STORY: Missing 13-Year-Old Lillia Found Safe and Well, Family Relieved

But the bakery was also known as a weak link that gangs were able to manipulate to get drugs and phones into Mountjoy.

‘All the stuff coming in from suppliers is not always checked by dog units and search teams,’ another officer told the MoS.

He added that the loading bay doors for food deliveries to the bakery and kitchen were not always appropriately locked.

‘If you’re bringing in something – especially a substance such as white flour – it can become very easy to bring in something extra, and that was always the problem with it,’ they said.

‘Everybody knew the stuff was coming in via deliveries. Prisoners had been caught removing drugs from the underside of delivery trucks and so on.’

The sources told how service lifts in the loading bay and food preparation areas can be used to distribute drugs further into the depths of the prison once they are delivered to the bakery.

The scale of this smuggling can be judged by a successful, intelligence-led operation implemented by the IPS in 2020.

In November that year, the largest haul of contraband ever intercepted was found hidden in bags of sugar and sprinkled with coffee to confuse sniffer dogs.

The consignment, hidden as part of a food truck delivery, included drugs, alcohol, phones and SIM cards.

In all 10,000 tablets, bags of cocaine, cannabis, 30 phones, SIM cards, bottles of whiskey, steroids and an exercise band were discovered.

So successful was this smuggling route, that gangs were able to supply contraband to order to individual prisoners.

This is evident by the manner in which drugs packages were individually wrapped with prisoners’ names on them.

According to gardaí at the time’ the cocaine had an estimated value of €140,000, the tablets were valued at €20,000, and the cannabis was worth €5,000.

Speaking at the time of the seizure, IPS Director General, Caron McCaffrey, said: ‘There were 600 boxes, with each being painstakingly taken off the truck and searched, and it was in the middle of the last pallet of items, that it was detected, in two boxes which purported to be sugar but when those boxes are opened, they contained a very significant amount of contraband.’

Ms McCaffrey said the drugs could have resulted in deaths among the prisoner population had they made their way into Mountjoy.

‘They certainly result in inter-prisoner violence and it can also result in assaults against our staff, specifically given the content and… it undoubtedly would have resulted in very significant overdoses and potentially deaths within the prison population.’

An IPS spokesperson told the MoS: ‘The Irish Prison Service does not comment on security or operational matters’.

Australian journalists are increasingly alarmed that Pauline Hanson no longer appears intimidated by them—assuming she ever was. More concerning, however, is the question of why so many Australians have lost faith in journalists.

Concern is mounting across the Fourth Estate after One Nation began excluding certain journalists from its events.

At a press conference at Crown Melbourne last week, reporters from the ABC and The Guardian were told to leave and escorted from the venue by hotel security. The Age has also been refused entry to One Nation events.

Some newsrooms have warned that barring journalists establishes a dangerous precedent in an otherwise healthy democracy. One Nation’s strategy may indeed be misguided. Hanson is certainly capable of facing tough questions, even if she responds in a way that differs from the standard approach of a conventional politician.

If One Nation hopes to replace the Coalition as Labor’s principal alternative, it must accept the greater scrutiny that ambition brings. Yet there is another aspect of the dispute that journalists seem far less willing to examine. The media is calling on Hanson to reflect on her conduct while showing little inclination to do the same itself.

Take the event from which the ABC and The Guardian were excluded. One Nation’s Victorian leader, Warren Pickering, used the occasion to publicly acknowledge that he had taken illegal drugs and had lost his licence several times for drink-driving offences when he was younger.

Regardless of one’s view of Pickering or his disclosures, it is hard to portray a press conference focused on revealing the most humiliating chapters of a politician’s past as an effort to evade scrutiny. The Australian, which first reported the story, was permitted to attend.

The excluded outlets were not prevented from reporting on, investigating or criticising One Nation. They continued to cover the matter extensively. Calling their exclusion “censorship” pushes the term well beyond its proper meaning.

Censorship stops journalists from publishing. It involves the state using its authority to suppress information or punish those who disclose it. Refusing entry to a privately organised media event is something else entirely: it withdraws privileged access, but does not remove press freedom.

Nor should anyone pretend that political parties do not routinely manage media access. Politicians offer exclusives to preferred reporters, leak material to sympathetic outlets and give selected journalists advance notice of announcements. Embargoed briefings, background discussions and carefully timed “drops” are all used to influence coverage. I know because, over the years, I have experienced every one of these tactics.

Reporters who cooperate with the system are rewarded with access. Those who create difficulties may find that calls go unanswered, interviews vanish and stories are handed to rival outlets.

The threat of freezing out journalists has been a feature of politics for decades. Governments are especially well placed to do it because they control such a vast supply of information. They seldom need to impose an official ban; the punishment can be delivered quietly. I have encountered that as well, on several occasions.

The ABC itself has previously characterised political “drops” as a familiar media-management technique—one journalists often accept and even welcome, despite the hidden agendas and conditions that can accompany them.

When the major parties ration information in this manner, it is described as media management. When One Nation does the same thing openly, it is presented as an existential danger to democracy. That is difficult to take seriously.

The major parties use a velvet glove; One Nation uses hotel security guards. In large part, the distinction is simply how discreetly the pressure is applied.

That does not make One Nation’s conduct more or less acceptable. It does, however, expose the media’s reaction as selective and inconsistent.

Some journalists hold an idealised view of the Fourth Estate that no longer reflects the way the industry actually operates.

Thomas Jefferson is frequently cited as a champion of the press. In 1787, he wrote that if forced to choose between “a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government”, he would choose the latter.

It’s a magnificent endorsement of press freedom.

But Jefferson didn’t regard newspapers as inherently virtuous. Twenty years later, after experiencing their excesses, he wrote that ‘nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper’. He understood something that is often lost in the present debate: a free press is essential, but that doesn’t make it infallible.

The modern media bears little resemblance to the institution journalists evoke when defending the sanctity of the Fourth Estate. It is fragmented, financially under pressure and increasingly driven by outrage, clicks and ideological affinities. That’s fine, but it means that the boundaries between reporting, analysis and activism have become blurred.

Social media rewards speed and fury rather than accuracy or proportion. Newsrooms increasingly speak to narrow audiences whose political instincts they already understand. Too many journalists mistake the prevailing opinions inside their own professional and social circles for the settled views of the country, and they couldn’t be more wrong. Especially gallery journalists confined to the Canberra bubble.

Trust in the media has declined accordingly. The 2025 Digital News Report found that only 43 per cent of Australians generally trusted the news. Yet when politicians reject the authority of the media, many journalists respond as though their own conduct couldn’t possibly have contributed to the breakdown.

No Australian political figure has more reason to distrust the press than Pauline Hanson. For three decades, Hanson has faced legitimate and often necessary scrutiny. She’s made offensive remarks, promoted questionable candidates and advanced policies that deserved rigorous examination. But that isn’t the whole story.

She has also been subjected to relentless ridicule, exaggeration, selective reporting and personal contempt. Misquoted and taken out of context. At times, journalists have appeared less interested in understanding her support than in displaying their moral superiority to it.

Her voters have routinely been depicted as ignorant, racist or stupidly incapable of recognising their own interests. Every controversy has been presented as the event that must finally destroy her. The possibility that Hanson might identify genuine community concerns (even when her prescriptions are sometimes flawed) has too often been dismissed without serious examination.

She was even sent to prison for three months before her convictions were quashed. Whatever the media’s role in that saga, Hanson’s suspicion of powerful institutions didn’t emerge from nowhere.

The media has spent so long treating Hanson as beyond the bounds of respectable politics that many of her supporters automatically discount almost anything reported about her now.

Hanson has recognised that she no longer needs the mainstream media as she once did. Social media allows political parties to speak directly to millions of voters. Interviews can be live-streamed, announcements published in full and hostile coverage answered almost instantly.

Yes, that creates genuine dangers. Politicians can evade difficult questions, construct self-serving narratives and communicate inside closed ecosystems wherein they are rarely challenged.

But it also means journalists are no longer indispensable gatekeepers. Access is not an entitlement bestowed by membership of the profession, it has to be justified by the value journalism provides and the trust it earns.

In my view, One Nation should probably lift its bans. A party seeking national power should be prepared to face unfriendly journalists, and Hanson is strong enough to do so. But the media should resist turning this into another sermon about its own democratic virtue.

After three decades of helping create the distrust on which One Nation now thrives, many in the modern media should be willing to answer a few questions themselves.

Wisconsin lawmaker Tom Tiffany has described the terrifying seconds before the small plane carrying him crashed into a lake, recalling how the pilot warned him they were going down and told him to brace.

The Republican congressman and gubernatorial candidate said the four-seat aircraft was approaching Wausau, Wisconsin, on Saturday night when the pilot instructed him to fasten his seat belt tightly.

“As we were making that final turn before we were going to approach for landing, the pilot turned to me and said, ‘Tom, we are going down, pull your seat belt as tight as possible,’” Tiffany told Fox News on Monday night.

“And it was like staring into the abyss. And you don’t know how far down it is.”

Tiffany quickly tightened the belt before the plane plunged into Lake Wausau.

“I pulled that seat belt as tight as I could and it was just a couple seconds later, we hit the water and we hit it hard,” he said.

Despite the force of the impact, the aircraft remained intact and stayed afloat.

“The plane stayed upright, thankfully as a result of the skilled work of the pilot, and we looked at each other and said, ‘Are you okay?’” Tiffany recalled.

As the damaged plane began to sink in the darkness, Tiffany realized that he and the pilot had only a limited amount of time to get out.

“When we were both okay I just said to him, ‘Get this door open,’ because, you know, the door was right there on my side in the copilot’s seat,” he explained.

They managed to open the door, escape the aircraft and swim away from it toward the shoreline.

“We got the door open, got out and the rest from there, we were able to be saved by the local law enforcement as well as the first responders,” Tiffany said.

“I can’t thank them enough for what they did, but it’s by the grace of God that we are here today.”

Tiffany said the events unfolded so quickly that he has found it difficult to reconstruct exactly what happened moment by moment.

“It happened really quickly,” he said. “And we were out of that plane I think really quickly. And, you know, you just try to piece it back together but it just happened so quickly.”

The congressman suffered a gash above his eye that required 12 stitches. The pilot received four stitches.

‘Each of us had very minor injuries. Once again thanks to the grace of God,’ Tiffany said. ‘This is the only injury I have.’

The dramatic account came two days after Tiffany first revealed he had survived the crash while returning home from the La Crosse County Lincoln Day Dinner.

He said the four-seat Bonanza lost power as it approached Wausau Downtown Airport, forcing the pilot to attempt an emergency landing on the lake.

‘While returning home from the La Crosse County Lincoln Day Dinner tonight, the plane I was traveling in lost power as we approached the Wausau Downtown Airport,’ Tiffany wrote on Facebook after the ordeal.

‘The pilot made an emergency water landing in Lake Wausau. After landing, we called 911,’ Tiffany wrote. ‘As the plane began to submerge, we exited the aircraft and swam to a shallow area, where we waited until emergency responders reached us by boat.’ 

The Marathon County Sheriff’s Office and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources responded to the scene.

Tiffany and the pilot were taken from the water and transported to Aspirus Wausau Hospital for treatment.

The congressman later thanked those involved in the dramatic rescue, saying first responders ‘got us safely off the water and transported us to Aspirus Wausau Hospital, where we received excellent care.’

Exactly what caused the aircraft to lose power remains under investigation.

Tiffany, a Republican, has represented Wisconsin’s 7th Congressional District since 2020, winning the seat previously held by Sean Duffy, who resigned from Congress in 2019 and now serves as President Donald Trump’s Transportation Secretary.

Tiffany is now the Republican nominee for Wisconsin governor and is set to face Democrat David Crowley in November.

A Marquette Law School poll published at the end of August showed the two tied at 44 percent of support each among respondents who were registered voters. 12 percent of registered voter respondents to the poll were undecided.

Wisconsin’s 7th congressional district has been represented by Republicans for the last 15 years.

A 13-year-old girl who went missing in Manchester has been found “safe and well” eight days later.

Lillia, from Bolton, was reported missing by her family on September 11 after she was last seen at a bus station in the city.

Her mother made an emotional plea for her daughter to come home after the teenager disappeared for more than a week.

Greater Manchester Police has now confirmed that Lillia has been found and is with officers.

The force said she was located in Manchester city centre in a safe and well condition, and that her family had been notified.

A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson said: “Thank you to everyone who shared our missing appeal for 13-year-old Lillia, who has been missing since Friday, September 11, 2026.

“We can confirm that she has been found safe and well in the city centre.

“She is currently with our officers, and her next of kin have been informed of this update.

“We will release more information in due course.”

Earlier this week, Lillia’s mother Jessica fought back tears as she sat beside Chief Superintendent Helen Critchley, who read a heartfelt statement on her behalf.

“Lill, I love you so, so much. My heart is breaking without you here,” she said.

“I need to know that you are safe. We all need you back home safe and well.”

In an update issued on Saturday, GMP said Lillia was last seen at Manchester Piccadilly bus station at 10.36am on Monday, September 14.

CCTV images from the station showed her wearing a black zip-up hoodie, dark trousers and carrying a black Nike backpack.

Police believe she travelled on the number 36 bus from Salford before getting off at the station.

Lillia was described as white and slim, standing approximately 5ft 5in tall, with light brown hair and glasses.

Previously the last sighting they had of the teenager was at 1.50pm on Saturday at the Trafford Centre shopping complex – where she boarded the 247 bus towards Altrincham. At that time, she was wearing light blue baggy jeans.

Officers scouring CCTV footage identified a further sighting of Lillia at the McDonald’s in Manchester city centre’s Market Street on Sunday at about 8.20pm.

Lillia’s aunt Nina posted on social media as part of the family’s appeal, saying she has no phone on her, very little money and no supplies other than her rucksack.

She added: ‘Lillia comes from a very loving family with a mum who does an amazing job and I couldn’t ask for a better mum for lil.

‘I was with Lillia a few weeks ago and asked her how school and life was, she showed no concerns and said everything was good, I gave her a hug and told her to keep being good for her mam.

‘As a family we have no idea what has made Lillia become untraceable.’

She said the family are having sleepless nights and described the ‘heartbreak’ of Lillia’s mother as ‘horrific’.

‘If anyone is with Lillia please tell her that she isn’t in trouble and once home everything will be ok,’ Nina added.

On Saturday, a large advertising board featuring pictures of Lillia was stationed in Piccadilly Gardens.

Chief Superintendent Critchley, of GMP, previously said: ‘I would like to take this opportunity to thank the public and the media for your continued support as we continue our inquiries to locate Lillia.

‘Our thoughts continue to be with her family, and friends, I would like to thank her mum for her support with our appeals over the past few days. She has shown incredible strength throughout, and we are doing all we can to bring her daughter back home to her.

‘Officers are making every effort to locate Lillia, and our team have been working through hours of CCTV footage and exploring every avenue to try and find her.

‘I can now confirm that our last known current sighting was of Lillia at Manchester Piccadilly bus station at 10.36am on the morning on Monday 14 September.

‘We can also share that she exited the number 36 bus at Piccadilly, with her boarding it in Salford.

‘That bus service travels from Bolton through Salford and into Manchester city centre.

‘If anyone has any information regarding Lillia’s whereabouts or movements from this bus – or you were on the bus at the time she was also on there or when she got on in Salford or off in Piccadilly – please contact us via 101 or the Major Incident Portal below.

‘We are also still keen to hear from anyone who may have been in Piccadilly Gardens on Sunday 13 September around 8.20pm, or saw her in McDonald’s at that time.

‘Monday 14 September is the last confirmed sighting of Lillia and our investigation currently covers the whole of Greater Manchester with officers across the force being asked to support our enquiries. We are also mindful that Lillia could have travelled outside of the Manchester area and are keeping an open mind regarding this possibility.’

This is a breaking story. More to follow. 

Dear Vanessa,

My son is 29, works full time and earns a decent income, yet I’ve realised I’m still covering a surprising amount of his expenses.

Some of these arrangements happened so gradually that I barely noticed. I own a business, and his phone and internet services have always been charged to the company, so I never stopped to question them. I also continue to pay for his health insurance and several subscriptions.

Each bill seems fairly manageable on its own, but I recently calculated the total and wondered why I was still paying everything for a 29-year-old man who is financially secure.

Family holidays are another issue. I generally pay for him to join us because, if I’m honest, I doubt he’d come if he had to cover the cost himself. Having all my children together is important to me, so I have continued picking up the bill.

His brother and sister fund their own trips, and they’ve begun asking why he receives different treatment. I can see why they feel frustrated.

I’ve tried discussing money with him before, but he quickly becomes defensive. His view seems to be that because I can afford to help, there is no reason for me to stop.

I know I have created this situation. I’ve never clearly told him that he is an adult and should now be responsible for these costs himself.

But I’m getting older, and I have started asking myself how long this can continue.

How can I stop financially supporting my adult child after so many years without making him resent me or triggering a major family conflict?

I feel embarrassed to admit it, but I’m also afraid that ending this support—especially paying for holidays—could mean seeing less of him.

Rachel

Vanessa’s response:

Rachel, I suspect the phone account is not the real source of your anxiety. What you are truly afraid of losing is your relationship with your son.

That makes this far more emotional than simply cancelling a few recurring payments.

You haven’t done anything wrong by allowing the arrangement to continue. You were helping your son out of love, and until recently you had not felt a compelling reason to change the pattern.

But that reason has now arrived.

Your other children have noticed the imbalance, you are beginning to challenge it yourself, and most importantly, you are recognising that fear—not simply generosity—is keeping you financially responsible for your adult son’s life.

That’s the bit I would pay attention to.

Are you paying because you want to, or because you’re scared not to?

There is nothing wrong with spending money on adult children if you can afford it and genuinely want to.

You can take your whole family on holiday. You can shout everyone dinner. You can give your children money. It’s your money and your choice.

But there’s an important difference between saying, ‘I’d love to take my children away and I’m happy to pay,’ and thinking, ‘If I don’t pay for my son, he won’t come.’

One is a gift. The other starts to feel like a price you’re paying for the relationship.

And no parent should have to keep paying a 29-year-old’s bills because they’re frightened he’ll withdraw his company if they stop.

Don’t make it a fight

RELATED: Did Comedian Carrot Top Commit Suicide? What We Know About Hospitalization Rumors in 2026

I wouldn’t suddenly cancel everything and wait for him to discover his phone has been cut off.

I’d have one calm conversation.

Tell him that you’ve realised a number of his expenses are still sitting on your accounts simply because that’s how things have always been. He’s working and independent now, so you’re going to start transferring them across to him.

Give him a reasonable date.

You don’t need a long explanation about retirement, fairness or how much you’ve already spent on him. And I wouldn’t make his siblings part of the argument. This is between you and him.

Something as simple as: ‘I’ve realised I’m still paying your phone, internet, health insurance and subscriptions. They’ve just carried on from when you were younger. You’re earning now, so from January I’m going to hand those over to you.’

Then stop talking.

He may not like it. That’s very different from you doing something wrong.

The holidays are a separate decision

If having everyone together brings you enormous joy and you can comfortably afford to pay, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing that.

But be truthful with yourself about why you’re paying.

If you’re paying for all your children because you want to give them a family holiday, that’s generous.

If your other children pay while you quietly cover your son’s costs because otherwise he won’t spend time with you, I’d question whether that’s a pattern you want to keep reinforcing.

Your other children may also be seeing something you haven’t wanted to look at: the child who takes responsibility for themselves can sometimes end up receiving less, while the child who pushes back keeps getting more.

Over many years, that can create resentment.

There isn’t a magic birthday when parents should stop helping their children.

The better question is: is my help helping them become more independent, or making it easier for them not to be?

Your son has a job. He can apparently afford these expenses. What he doesn’t currently have is any reason to take them over because you’re paying them.

So give him one.

And Rachel, if your relationship with your son changes because you stop paying his phone bill, then the phone bill was never the real problem.

You may have to tolerate some annoyance while the dynamic changes. Don’t mistake his displeasure for a family crisis.

You can love your son, be generous with him and enjoy spoiling him occasionally without remaining financially responsible for him.

In fact, at 29, handing him his own bills may be one of the more loving things you can do.

All the best,

Vanessa

You can subscribe to Vanessa’s free newsletter here.