Letters to the Editor: Cinemas should have audio description for visually-impaired people
Audio description is provided by many cinemas for visually-impaired cinemagoers. David Redmond was surprised by the response of one cinema to his query whether they provided it. Picture: iStock
A few weeks ago, I phoned a cinema in Cork. When I asked the young gentlemen on the other end of the line if the cinema had audio description for visually-impaired viewers, the poor man was so audibly confused that I didnât need any description to imagine his facial expression.
I explained that audio description is an extra track of narration to assist blind or low-vision people like me, and that itâs usually delivered through a headset so as not to bother other cinema attendees.
This audibly confused gentleman had a response I hadnât heard before: âThatâs a very bougie request.â
I canât blame this young man for not being familiar with audio description or accessibility accommodations, as the reality is heâs probably just another one of our underpaid and undervalued college students trying to earn a living. But for me, audio description isnât bougie. It is an important accessibility accommodation, but the unfortunate reality is that not enough cinemas in Cork have the required headsets, so blind audiences are left out.
I never went to see that movie; in fact, I havenât been to the cinema since. If audio description is bougie, then thatâs fine by me, but I really wish more cinemas would better accommodate all those blind folks who are currently looking to enjoy a movie.
In the interest of democracy, local council elected members should be allowed a free vote when it comes to the nomination of presidental candidates. They should not be fettered by party loyalties which block potential candidates. The constitutional requirements were never intended to be a barrier for those with ability and pubic standing in the community to have their name on the ballot sheet.
This is the first presidental election where the nomination has become a major issue, with many feeling the need to make a constitutional change to make it more open, a bit of common political generosity would solve this issue rather than going to the expense of a referendum.
It is in the remit of the TDs, senators, and elected members of the local authorities to have open, fair, and healthy competition. Surely the electorate are mature enough and can be trusted to make the right decision when it comes to the ballot box. How do we know what the electorate want if we donât give them adequate choice?
The elected city and county councillors, in the interest of fairness, should have a free hand to give presidental nominations to those who make a reasonable case in their presentation and let the electorate make the decision to accept or reject them. The sovereignty of the State comes from the will of the people, after all.
Sometimes the boat needs rocking and variety of candidates will add some healthy excitement to this upcoming election which so far seems to be only known for the rejection of âoutsidersâ rather than healthy competition.
MicheĂĄl Martin can very well admonish councils over de-zoning land, but he shouldnât forget that his own Government created a scenario where many landowners now oppose zoning of their land due to a legacy of the Greens â residential zoned land tax (RZLT).
Half of the submissions to a recent Killarney draft plan were seeking to remove zoning from land, with RZLT an oft-cited reason. RZLT, combined with other transaction taxes such as capital gains tax and stamp duty, means thereâs little interest in having or selling zoned land when the State will absorb 40% of sale proceeds.
The Government needs to choose between raising taxes and building housing. So far, collecting taxes isnât delivering any great jump in housing supply. Perhaps itâs time for a new approach? RZLT should go the way of the Greens who created it â into obscurity.
The landowners of Ireland are ready to talk when sense prevails in the Governmentâs approach to their property rights and taxation policy.
The question is: How long more might that take?
The Crowe Report into the gardaĂ is a damning indictment of a police force. The report is highly critical and cites many breakdowns in roads policing and management. Negative conclusions reached in the report are many, though sugar-coated with the majority who are not a problem. However the report does not say how much of a majority, with words like âsignificantâ used to cite poorly-performing or indifferent gardaĂ. The report cites gardaĂ who were âignoring road traffic offencesâ and indifferent attitudinal problems when dealing with management. The report suggests management have no control or authority over some gardaĂ.
There was also criticism of overuse of checkpoints to the detriment of other methods of road policing. GardaĂ who were getting close to retirement were also mentioned for disinterest in their jobs. Such gardaĂ should be given early retirement rather than showing no interest and indifference in their jobs. In Section 3.2 of the report, it stated: âWe also found it disturbing that those members who told us how much they disliked their job had no difficulty in raising these issues in front of external consultants engaged specifically by An Garda SĂochĂĄna to review how roads policing operates; it was a clear sign of how little they cared or how little expectation they had that such behaviour would come back to reflect badly on them as individuals or the professionalism of the organisation.â
It should be remembered, taking the above into account, that more than 150 people die every year on the road and hundreds more are injured, some with and injured for life with life-changing consequences.
Roads policing needs gardaĂ who give a damn, because many drivers donât.
Itâs amusing to observe so much righteousness evidenced by all those who opine that they will never set foot in Doonbegâs Trump Hotel.
What a relief to realise that such crawthumping virtue-signallers will never darken Doonbeg. Having been there on a number of occasions, I can testify to the employment it brings to the local community, the professionalism and humour of the staff, the glorious views, the attention to detail, the free transport provided to restaurants in the local village, the wonderful food...
Ă la Arnold Schwarzenegger, Iâll be back!
As one of those who has, until recent geopolitical shifts, supported âpolicy traditions that have ensured security for well over half a centuryâ, and having no connection with any of the organisations criticised by the authors, I would take issue with some of the points raised by Patrick Bresnihan and Rory Rowan (âOne-sided discussion on Irish neutrality does not serve democracyâ, the Irish Examiner, September 11).
In the first instance, I would suggest that Ireland has never been truly neutral, but has rather adopted a policy of non-membership of Nato or any EU common defence arrangement, should such be adopted. In respect of the latter, we are constitutionally prohibited from doing so. In the interests of transparency, the article might have referenced this constitutional provision.
We are certainly not neutral in the current war between Russia and Ukraine, but, in line with our general policy, are non-belligerents.
As someone who has undertaken six peacekeeping tours, I am acutely aware that this aspect of our âpolicy traditionsâ has been positive for our reputation. I am also conscious, however, that our failure to develop armed forces capable of defending our neutrality, unlike âheavily-armedâ Switzerland, and indeed Finland and Sweden as neutrals, makes a mockery of our claim to be such, and has resulted in our effective dependence on Nato for our ultimate security. However, I would acknowledge that this policy was, in the past, a pragmatic one, taking advantage as it did of our geographical location.
As Sweden and Finland have acknowledged, however, the world has changed. Trumpâs America, not just Trump himself, has grown more isolationist, and, with some justification, is resentful of Europe being protected by the US, without making adequate contribution to its own defence. The Ukraine invasion, and, in recent days, the drone probes of Polish defence and the military manoeuvres on its borders, underline that an expansionist Russia, led by a dictator, is a real and present threat to European security.
The Consultative Forum, derided in the article and which President Higgins outrageously attempted to derail, was at least an attempt to highlight the need to reassess policy in the light of very significantly altered geopolitical circumstances. To fail to have done so would have constituted an alarming breach of duty by the Government. We need to pause our moralising and consider our policy options in a pragmatic manner.
Given US ambivalence, Nato is much weakened, and there is a constitutional prohibition on adhering to a common EU defence. Irish options are therefore limited, and we cannot hope to be strong enough to act in isolation from our partners. We need to enhance defence and security co-operation with the UK (with whom we have an existing air defence arrangement) and our EU partners, support maximising European strategic autonomy, and urgently implement the recommendations in Option 3 of the Commission on the Defence Forces. This will of course mean dealing with arms manufacturers. We already do so for all of our military equipment, and needs must.
