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.
DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL said it has so far received zero valid applications from businesses to place sandwich boards outside their premises since the deadline passed on August 31.
The city council licenced the boards from 1 September, levying an annual charge of €630. Some business owners say the final cost to them could well be far higher, due to related application costs.
The boards can be an effective advertising tool for businesses around the city centre’s narrow, winding streets – but they can also clutter pathways and make it difficult for those who use wheelchairs and the visually impaired.
Many restaurants and cafes hit out at what they described as the extortionate cost to place the boards outside their businesses.
To be allowed place one of the signs outside a business, it must register itself with the council, something no company has yet to seek.
If a premises is found to be using a sandwich board without a licence then the board can be removed by the council.
To enforce these new changes, DCC has appointed a number of new inspectors.
A spokeswoman said: “No valid applications have been received to date. Enforcement began on Monday morning with unlicensed boards being removed by the Council.
“Enforcement will take place on an ongoing basis over different shifts by day and evening/night. The unit is made up of existing DCC staff with four new staff being recruited at Assistant Inspector level.”
With reporting by Garreth MacNamee
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
And they had to have a big consultation to figure that out. ..Give me a break whatever happened to good old common sense.
Regrettably in this day and age, common sense isn’t very common.
yes censorship works
It also favours government propaganda and oppression.
exactly, suicide is unpopular so journalists should not report, this is the censorship line
I think the figures should be reported daily.
The truth is well masked and denies the serious straits many people are in and take desperate measures. It then is easier for them to say that improvements and help are not needed.
It may well be sensible not to report the method but where and how many would be most telling. I’m think most of us know the reasons.
THIS SHOULD BE REPORTED.
It should,not be hidden and it is to be recognised that the problems are much bigger and more widespread than the government report with their big smiles and all the carry on at the EEC.
Media agencies should provide journalists with the ethics of reporting on suicides.
There are already ethics about reporting suicide. There’s a great group called Headline that monitor media for such things who came in to give us a talk when I studied media.
These ethics aren’t exactly legally implemented, though. Most of the changes in the reporting of suicide are pretty subtle and you’d nearly need them to be pointed out to notice them.
For instance, you shouldn’t ever read an article these days claiming somebody had “committed suicide”, since it was decriminalised, there’s no crime to be committed.
Areas where suicide is a problem shouldn’t be refereed to as “hot spots” and the methods used shouldn’t be reported.
When two people kill themselves together, they ofter get referred to as “Romeo and Juliet”, which romaticises suicide.
As I said, though, these aren’t legal issues. Just common sense, really.
I don’t think that the reporting on suicide is the issue.A poorly resources mental health service is having a far bigger impact on the numbers than anything else.Now how about a big media discussion on this point.
Sadly, there is nothing in a media report that is not easily found by a Google search.
Just completed the ASIST refresher training (Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training). I did the initial training 4 years ago.
For those that are interested you can find out when it may be in your area ~
There’d be little risk of any copycats if reporters used terms that made the legacy of suicide seem unappealing. e.g. instead of saying “a person has taken their own life” they should say “another idiot has taken the cowards way out”. Copycats are weak-minded & unoriginal so attaching a negative stigma is a much better deterrent that the “poor you” mentality.
And before people start thinking I’m trying to insult suicidal people, maybe read it again a few times. I’m specifically talking about copycats (as the article is about) NOT people with real mental health issues!
Anyone that thinks suicide is “the cowards way out” doesn’t understand. Not sure what you mean by “real mental health issues”. It is something that can happen to anyone, given certain circumstances. Drugs or alcohol can also influence a person’s state of mind. Including prescribed drugs eg anti-depressants. While some people can tolerate these drugs, for others they can increase the risk of suicide, especially in the younger age groups. Hence the FDA have a black box warning on these psychoactive drugs ~
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/UCM096273
Going on or coming off these drugs can also be a vulnerable time.
{ Do not stop or change without discussing with a good doctor, due to the dangers of withdrawal incorrectly }
Well why not to ban movies and their making too then?? Example: Wild tales…a pilot that takes his own life and others too. Movies, news, books are fonts of great ideas and surely do not apply only for suiciding’s thoughts, but to wanna be rapists, racists, killers, thieves…maybe should just banned people from all forms of information and entertainment
have your say