WITHOUT taking from the government's culpability for its unprepardness, I am surprised at how little criticism there is of the Supreme Court itself.

The Supreme Court, in the persons of Justice Hardiman and concurring Justices Murray, Geoghegan, Fennelly and McCracken, had a choice.

They could, very reasonably, have accepted the state's submission that the offending section of the 1935 Act should cease to have effect in so far as it precluded a "reasonable mistake" as to the girls age.

This remedy would be a winwin situation. It would have removed the constitutionally repugnant element of the act while leaving the law itself intact.

But no, our esteemed justices went for the nucleuar option, struck down the offence itself and opened a horrifying Pandora's Box.

The court's reasoning that to accept the state's submission would appear to involve the court in legislation, is weak in the extreme and does not stand up to scrutiny because by striking down the offence, itself they have interfered with the Legislator's intent in a much more fundamental way.

The court's decision not only removes this vile offence from the statute books but will also remove many paedophile sexual predators from the Sex Offenders Register, thus putting countless numbers of children at risk.

I was a huge fan of Adrian Hardiman during those heady days of the Constitutional Crusade and am aghast at how he could preside over such a decision. It appears to me that this decision was arrived at by a clinical parsing of words and legal phrases and that common sense, justice, the common good and protection of our children played little or no part in their deliberations.

I wonder if it is possible for the Supreme to reverse a decision. If so they should do so immediately. If not, they should resign in shame.

35 Silchester Park, Glenageary, Co Dublin

Minor quibbles over Munster coverage From Peter O'Dowd

I REFER to the article in last Sunday's (11 May) publication, Marcel Martin in conversation with Miguel Delaney.

There are a number of points made by Mr Martin that I would like to take issue with. He stated "that during the Heineken Cup final in Cardiff, the big screen regularly showed the crowds on the streets of Cork and Limerick". While accepting that Mr Martin would probably not be able to identify Cork from Limerick, I would like to inform him that no crowd scenes were shown from Cork and the scenes from Limerick were shown just twice, first time in the 61st minute and secondly with about five minutes to go in the game. This differs hugely from Mr Martin's assertion that they were shown regularly.

Whether this had an influence on the game is debatable as it could also have had a negative effect on the Munster players and put extra pressure on them.

Was this more advantageous to Munster than the try awarded to Biarritz in the opening minutes when TV pictures clearly showed the player putting his foot on the touch line not once but twice before he crossed the try line? I feel that most players would opt for a seven point lead at the start of the game rather than two short clips of a crowd scene on the stadium screen.

However I would agree with him that if any scenes of the team's home towns were to be shown that both areas should have been covered.

I also find it very difficult to understand that a club as big as Biarritz would wait until after the semi-final to seek out accommodation in Cardiff.

It was 12 months ago that this particular final was fixed for Cardiff and surely any club with the ambition of competing in the final would have booked their hotel accommodation long before the semi-finals were played. Most hotels only require 24 hours notice of a cancellation, so if Biarritz had not won their semi-final they would have been able to give the hotel two weeks notice of cancellation. It seems to me that Biarritz are either very naive or their off-field organisation leaves a lot to be desired.

As regards the Munster fans outnumbering their French counterparts by 20 to one, well Mr Martin, what do you expect when Munster fans were able to travel to Biarritz and purchase tickets in hundreds from your club without even having to join a queue, as there seemed to be little interest from the Biarritz fans. My family and I used these very tickets for the Biarritz section in the Millennium stadium and found ourselves surrounded by fellow Munster fans, with only a handful of French supporters in sight.

However, I must compliment all the Biarritz fans for their sportsmanship and generosity in defeat. True sports fans.

I have had to endure the heartbreak of defeat in both 2000 and 2002 and it is not easy to remain in the stadium and watch the opposition receive the trophy and the glory, but fair play to the Biarritz fans for remaining and being so generous in defeat. Losing two finals has made Munster a better team and it will also do the same for Biarritz.

Best of luck to Biarritz for the future and I look forward to you having your day of glory.

Peter O'Dowd 49 Ballykeeffe Est, Limerick.

RTE should show Loach's movies From Dr Sean Marlow

KEN LOACH's new film which won the 2006 Palme d'Or in Cannes, is being described as British while simultaneously being condemned as antiBritish!

In fact, as well as the subject material, the IRA's struggle for independence, The Wind That Shakes The Barley has many Irish connections. The title comes from a song by Robert Dwyer Joyce. It was written by Paul Laverty and produced by Rebecca O'Brien. The film was shot mostly in West Cork using local people as actors and stars Cillian Murphy and Padraic Delaney.

This is not the first time Ken Loach has made a film about the Irish struggle. Back in 1990, when 'experts' were still dismissing shoot-to-kill and collusion by British forces in the north, Loach directed Hidden Agenda, which won the Special Jury Prize in Cannes. This political thriller also used Irish actors and highlighted the cover-up of British forces' dirty tricks at a time when it was neither popular nor profitable.

It would be a fitting tribute if RTE were to show these two movies and others by Ken Loach, an Englishman with a great affinity for Ireland and indeed for anti-imperialist struggles everywhere.

Dr Sean Marlow marlows@eeng. dcu. ie

Hitler didn't own Pope Pius XII From Gerry Glennon

THE article by Peter Stanford which your review editor, Diarmuid Doyle, passed for publication on Sunday 28 May 2006, is a travesty of historical facts.

Let me point out one obvious one. Peter Stanford is quoted as saying: "On being elected pope in 1939, Pius's first act was to suppress a document denouncing Hitler, entitled 'Mit Brennender Sorge' (with deep anxiety) that his predecessor had been writing on his deathbed".

The document referred to above was a papal encyclical written in German and distributed secretly in Germany in 1937 in the reign of Pius XI. It is common knowledge that the then Secretary of State in the Vatican, Cardinal Pacelli, supervised the writing of this encyclical, having been Papal Nuncio in Germany until 1929.

Cardinal Pacelli was elected pope in 1939 and became Pius XII.

Am I right in thinking that the title of the article, "The man they call Hitler's Pope" is the responsibility of Diarmuid Doyle? Who are "they"? This is a cheap shot using the title of John Cornwell's book Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII.

I hope, in the interests of natural justice, you can see your way to publishing some letter rebutting Peter Stanford's article Gerry Glennon, Auburn Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin A rough guide for Mr Wallis in Ireland From PJ Quinn I'VE read Geoff Wallis's two articles in the Tribune Review on his pet hates and delights of Ireland.

At the beginning of his 'hates' list, he did ask the readers not to judge him too harshly until we'd read his Ireland's 'delights' article on the following Sunday.

I don't know if he was attempting an apology of sorts after all the controversy, but he says that his 'hate' list was actually compiled in discussion with 'Irish friends'.

Now, in his number one on the 'delights' list he gives the impression that he likes to commune with nature, and have a quick confab with a sheep. Could this be one of his Irish 'friends'?

I'm glad he used sheep in the singular, because by coincidence, in the Ross O'CarrollKelly article on the back page, Ross received the following text: What do you call a bogger with two sheep? A Bigamist! Roysh.

On the 'hate' list, I will quickly pass number 18 and go on to number 20. Geoff Wallis wonders why the dogs in Clare, Donegal and Kerry gave frequent chase to his car. Could it be that the dogs in the other 29 counties have a greater sense of smell?

Not to worry Geoff, we make an allowance for outsiders.

P J Quinn, Chapel Lane, Longford