It is difficult and I actually sympathise with many of the situations Joe says can come about.

But there has to be a start. That start is to recognise that the law is the law. it may be wrong, it may be needing review, it may oppress and it may be immoral.

But Ireland, the UK and The USA (the three countries from which the vast majority of contributors to this thread come from ) are democracies. So there should be, in theory, no reason to break the law as there are other ways to express your view and influence on the lawmaking.

It is perfectly simple. If the law states, not unreasonably, that withholding evidence is wrong, then nobody, no matter how pointy their hat is, no matter celibate they are, no matter how much they have been told they are a guardian of communities by those who taught them, no matter how much they try to obey a foreign country's dictat, nobody sits above the law.

They have to decide whether their actions make them criminals or not. A bit of a harsh way of putting it, yes. But being involved in health and social care regulation I do get involved in vetting of people who work with vulnerable people, and no safeguarding principles I know of would allow people who openly break the law be put in a position of influence towards vulnerable people, let alone vulnerable children, as has been the sad awful case here for so long. And why did it perpetuate? Possibly because they thought themselves above the law.

QED