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.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS MUST take action to protect their customers from fraud and scams under new consumer protections measures to be introduced next year by the Central Bank.
The banking regulator is seeking to make lenders more transparent, through changing the phrasing, conditions and responsibilities in the Consumer Protection Code – which enforces a range of customer rights.
Through the introduction of effective, continuous and clear communication, the Central Bank hopes that banks will be able to mitigate scammers who may seek to defraud their customers.
Fraud is on the rise, according to research by the Central Bank, and led to €126m being stolen from banking customers in 2023 alone, a €26m when compared to 2022. Polling suggests that 80% of Irish customers have been or are actively targeted by fraudsters.
The new consumer protection code, which will be in place from March 2026, creates strict rules around how banks approach, contact and speak with customers or potential clients and stresses the need to have clear, transparent communication with the public.
Instead of a culture of disclosures, the code incentivises companies to carry out effective communication to inform customers about the day-to-day activities of the bank and its current performance.
Continuous communication will also prevent unregulated purchases, as the code states that consumers must never be under the assumption that all operations carried out by a regulated institution are protected.
Greenwashing – when firms and other entities make false claims about the environmental benefits of purchases, products or decisions – will also be more heavily monitored, as financial institutions will be required to state the intended impact new products should have on the climate.
Separately, this new code will require banks to issue detailed information about mortgage switching, including the requirements, associated costs and cost of credit, so that consumers can make informed decisions and comparisons.
The Central Bank has also revised its definition of vulnerable customers, to include a more fluid description of who and when clients are considered at risk or vulnerable. This will require lenders to be more attentive and engaged with that cohort.
Banks will also be required to introduce and developer digital services, with a customer-focused approach in terms of the design and implementation. This will create accessible services to all types of customers.
Companies have one year to put in place the revised consumer protection code, which was published after an extensive review, consultation and survey period. It was developed following engagement with customers and the industry.
Governor of the Central Bank Gabriel Makhlouf has welcomed the publication of the new code, with has been developed over ten years. He said the new changes must reflect the new opportunities that banks have to engage with customers.
“Consumers will benefit from a package of protections that better reflect how they are accessing financial services in the modern world,” he said.
“Hey we really value inclusion and diversity so we’re gonna fire anyone who disagrees with us”
he hasn’t been fired
Do you reckon they’ll give him his position (as chairman) back after publicly denouncing him for his comments and saying he doesn’t represent the company?
Do you think he deserves it considering he explicitly flew in the face of his companys manifesto with those statements? If those are his true opinions do you think he’d want his position back considering the comapny he works for apparently has a completely different ethos to his personal one?
I haven’t read the company’s mainfesto. If the mainfesto states that they approve of gender quotas, then maybe they were justified in putting him on leave.
If the manifesto just says that they company are looking for ‘gender equality’ then it is completely unjustified, as he never came out against gender equality in the company.
You don’t even need to read it because the company say that that’s the reason he’s been suspended.
>Promoting gender equality starts at the top and **the Groupe will not tolerate anyone speaking for our organization who does not value the importance of inclusion**. Publicis Groupe works very hard to champion diversity and will continue to insist that each agency’s leadership be champions of both diversity and inclusion.
Well no, they said that after the fact. For the suspension to be truly justified he would’ve had to know the company’s stance from the manifesto and then publicly denounce it.
What does it say in their manifesto?
>For the suspension to be truly justified he would’ve had to know the company’s stance from the manifesto
If the chairman of a company wasn’t familiar with the manifesto of said company I would make the argument that that chairman was not particularly good at his job.
So Veronica, you’re all for firing individuals who exercise their right to free speech. That’s usually the first salvo of a facist takeover, a purge. I’m still trying to figure out he said deserves firing but then I’m not up to speed on the whole SJW lexicon of what correct speak and what’s oppressive speak. You feminists are seriously vindictive when it comes to white men saying something that’s not 100% supportive of your “ism”. Off with their heads like the crazy queen in Alice in wonderland because that’s where the cult of PC has led us.
You do know that “free speech” just means he’s not going to be put in jail by the government for his opinions, right? It doesn’t mean a company has to put up with somebody going against their manifesto, nor does it mean that people have to like what everyone says.
You’re right Veronica, if he went against what was said in the company mainfesto it wouldn’t be befitting of the chairman of the company.
So… did he? If not, then it’s not his fault.
He was suspended for having a valid opinion and quite a logical one but he has pissed off my fellow females who claim they represent women around the world. Let’s be clear these extreme feminists represent themselves and no woman with a brain or an ounce of common sense. Although it seems you dare not disagree with them or you lose your job (get suspended) and become the subject of hormonal outrage. If you criticise the new Ghostbusters movie you will have your Twitter account banned for life.
Odd world we live in where the snowflake generation are mostly female or gay and winning it seems.
Marg, it’s not a free speech issue if he was representing the company at the time.
Well said Sarah, it does seem very harsh. And yes, the new ghostbusters movie is shite
You do know Sarah, that wanting a qualified woman to be as eligible for a job as a qualified man does not an “extreme feminist” make?
> the subject of hormonal outrage
yeah, nothing outs you as intellectual powerhouse quite like ad hominems like that.
>If you criticise the new Ghostbusters movie you will have your Twitter account banned for life.
*sigh*
@dave. What he said was an opinion. He doesn’t see gender as an issue. To me that is not a statement that could possibly be construed as oppositional to a company mission statement. It’s been picked up by feminists as oppositional to their manifesto which is special treatment for women. He made a statement that us “perceived” as not jiving with received norms in the group identity politics world. Being fired for having an opinion that is not in complete sync with an “ism” is facist and IS a free speech issue not a corporate compliance issue.
Marg, the magazine he made the comments to were not interviewing him as a private citizen, he was being interviewed in his role within the company. He was fined for misrepresenting the companys position on the issue
@dave. So says Saachi after the fact. They’re just toeing the feminazi line because they’re all so far up their own PC asses, firing their chairman is just such a “right on” thing to do. An employment tribunal would be hard pressed to find what he said contrary to any company manifesto. I still wracking my brains to see what is so objectionable in what he said. He doesn’t see “gender” as being an issue could be perceived as being a very inclusive and equal thing to say. Putting women into top creative positions just because they’re women could be construed as very sexist which I believe it is. Talent and creativity will out. At least In the western world.
Marg/Malachi-
You’re all wound up about this- are you feeling threatened wee snowflakes? Need to go to the quiet room maybe? Lol.
oooh they wont like being called snowflakes
Marg, I’ll say it again. Its not a free speech issue and if the company feel he misrepresented them during a work commitment in a way that may have a negative impact on the company then they are well within their rights
Anne, I’m not wound up at all, but sure thanks anyway for that assertion.
Anne de croix. Is that your contribution? Bit slow witted don’t you think? Can do better!
Says Marg, 4 hours later
“Promoting gender equality starts at the top and the Groupe will not tolerate anyone speaking for our organization who does not value the importance of inclusion.”
Just goes to show how completely ludicrous Social Justice has become. The CEO never stated that he doesn’t believe in an inclusive work environment. He simply voiced his opinion that gender-based discrimination in his mind was not an issue for his company anymore.
It’s becoming impossible to hold a differing opinion these days.
You have the regressive left to thank for that.
Yeah, you’ve gotta fight for your right to keep men at the very top where they belong.
employee damages company reputation with crude and insensitive comments, seems like some sort of disciplinary action would need to be considered. or perhaps its the thin end of the wedge and we’re all doomed by being to nice, or something.
Theresa May and Angela Merkel head of the world’s 5th and 4th largest economies beg to differ with you. The Uk Labour party has all sorts of gender and ethnic quotas, yet they’ve never had a female leader. Why, because quotas encourage mediocrity. You end up with the likes of Diane Abbot.
The Tories on the other hand are already on their second female PM. And both of them got their on merit.
A poor statement for a chairman to ever make. He didn’t just express his opinion, he dismissed it as an issue and ruled out any sort of consideration towards it now or in the future. He showed a lack of importance towards the issue of gender equality which clearly and rightfully his company doesn’t agree with.
This “gender equality” you speak of isn’t equality at all. It is ideology applied by force. Very dangerous stuff.
This decision amounts to fascism. The fascism of the left. Silence those who do not agree with us. Send them away for ‘re-education’. It”s insidious.
are these left-fascists anything like Commie-Nazis?
Veronica the only gender that are discriminated against in our constitution are men….. Namely single dads who have flip all rights and underage boys who have sex with underage girls…..”the romeo and Juliet rule” I think at this stage any hard line feminists that think women are kept down are doing women a disservice and perpetuating a stigma that isn’t justified by the reality.
As far as I’m aware, the stats for men who actively seek custody recieve it most of the time.
>underage boys who have sex with underage girls
absurd, you’re right.
>Veronica the only gender that are discriminated against in our constitution are men
Beyond ridiculous. Just think about what you’ve typed and then google the words “abortion in Ireland”
>>underage boys who have sex with underage girls
>absurd, you’re right.
meaning in terms of teens who are having sex with other teens their own age, not 16 year olds having sex with 12 year olds etc
Veronica please inform yourself before polluting the facts with nonsense. The Romeo and Juliet rule means that if 2 16 year olds have consensual sex, only the male can be tried for statutory rape. The single worst case of discrimination in our constitution. Please inform yourself of the facts before responding. Misaligning my comment wasn’t smart. It just confuses the debate. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me but please don’t try and reinvent the truth. It only delays progress. Look what happened in the Brexit vote. Both sides lied through their teeth and misinformed people.
Last time I checked men couldn’t get an abortion either. That’s not discrimination Veronica. It may be unfair but it’s not discrimination by any stretch. But once again trying to win an argument is more important than having a balanced well researched and thought out debate.
Barry what are you talking about.
Did you not read my comment? I said I agreed with you that the Romeo and Juliet rule is ridiculous.
>The single worst case of discrimination in our constitution
… yeah. Half the population not getting access to a necessary form of healthcare though isn’t. Come on.
>please don’t try and reinvent the truth
eh?
>Last time I checked men couldn’t get an abortion either. That’s not discrimination Veronica.
Right, I see what’s going on here then. I’m off.
I’ve been trying to understand the midst of your average MRA for a while now and have to come to the conclusion that low IQ and basic lack of logical reasoning ability must be at the root of it.
>low IQ and basic lack of logical reasoning ability must be at the root of it.
That and a really deep dislike of women. Go to AMR for more examples of it, no doubt a lot of the commenters here have featured there.
“I’ve been trying to understand the midst of your average MRA for a while now and have to come to the conclusion that low IQ and basic lack of logical reasoning ability must be at the root of it.”.
Agreed with the root cause, it’s the exact same thing as misandrists who hide behind and claim to be feminists, if that helps. The only difference being that feminism actually has a history of being something worthwhile. The vocal misandrists may have poisoned that now but it would be a disservice to the original feminists to allow that, which is why I tend to draw the distinction.
the feminists are lucky to have you in their corner
This guy said he intends to treat people equally regardless of their sex
What a monstrous sexist
He dismisses it as an issue completely. That’s the problem. It is very clearly an issue.
I see, you work there then do you?
Lorem have you not heard of indirect discrimination? its a big area. lots of law. some of it tricky.
Lorem, I never mentioned it being an issue at any specific company. I mentioned that it’s a societal issue. Try reply to what I actually post next time please
Female gardai are generally not given the same treatment by the public as similarly ranked male gardai.
Oh you silly silly white male.
Have you any idea how many laws in the unwritten book of political correctness you just broke?
SJW’s White knights and virtue signallers will eat you for breakfast.
eating too much white stuff can be bad for your health. i recommend more wholegrain.
We can expect a pethora of comments beneath (probably above as this will be heavily “disagreed with”) of certain people saying that working towards gender equality is a form of “discrimination against men” as “if the women were actually any good they’d already be equally represented”.
>I don’t think [the lack of women in leadership roles] is a problem.
then
>I can’t talk about sexual discrimination because we’ve never had that problem, thank goodness.
someone’s certainly got their blinkers on.
Never been a problem for him personally = problem doesn’t exist.
Working towards gender equality isn’t discrimination against men. Giving women the vote or control over their own reproductive rights doesn’t impact me in any way shape or form.
However, what seems to be your idea of gender ‘equality’ (quotas?) actually makes it harder for men to get positions and so yeah, that is unfair. Sorry if you predicted the response but it doesn’t make it less true.
Quotas are implemented because without them it would be impossible for women to get promoted. As it is they don’t get anywhere close to leveling the playing field. People taking up the space that it rightfully theirs only feels like discrimination if you’re used to taking more than your share.
What do you tell the men that lose out on positions by virtue of having the wrong thing between their legs? “Sorry pet, it’s for equality!”. Nah.
I’m all for equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Level the playing field by removing barriers for women, don’t do that by inserting barriers for men. Surely this isn’t a radical position.
>What do you tell the men that lose out on positions by virtue of having the wrong thing between their legs?
Same thing that men have been saying to women for years?
So you’d like everything to stay as unequal as it has always been, just switching the roles?
You’re definitely not a social justice warrior, I’ll give you that. There’s obviously no desire for social justice in this outlook.
>So you’d like everything to stay as unequal as it has always been, just switching the roles?
Where did I say I want women to make up the entire board of directors and top executives?
Malachi we don’t call it the ‘wrong thing between my legs’ anymore, a bit of sex education will have you right up to speed
You didn’t. You said you want to actively discriminate based on the genitals of an applicant.
Which most of us would agree is primitive and backward, but apparently it’s acceptable if you’re doing it the ‘right’ way around.
>Which most of us would agree is primitive and backward, but apparently it’s acceptable if you’re doing it the ‘right’ way around.
Yeah you’re right, men should definitely only have the top positions because of the old boys club and ingrained institutional sexism, rather than merit.
Surely if you truely believed in having the best at the top you would welcome gender quotas because it would mean truly the best men are selected, rather than the ones who get in based on who they know and who their daddies are, and the women who are selected would also be the best considering everyone would be watching them like hawks, desperate to see them f-up.
So ensuring that 10% of management is female is actively placing barriers in front of the 90% of men? Because what about that poor displaced 10% who were clearly entitled to those jobs? Please. Ireland ranks 86th out of 189 countries globally, alongside countries like Libya, Uzbekistan and North Korea.in terms of employing women in upper management. Men are certainly not losing out. In fact, they appear to only be promoting men unless they are forced to look at all deserving candidates.
Why would anyone in their right mind welcome gender Quotas ??
Gender Quotas cause more inequality then equality.
People should be hired based on their merits, regardless of what gender they are.
With gender quotas you discriminate against either sex.
It’s bad enough the Dail has it.
You’re right Veronica, I do want the best at the top. That’s why I like meritocracies. In a meritocracy, your gender should be irrelevant because guess what, being either a man or a woman doesn’t add to your merit and it shouldn’t impact your ability to get a position.
If there are serious barriers preventing women from getting top jobs, then dismantle them in every way possible so that women have just as much of a chance to get a position as any man. The solution shouldn’t involve worsening the problem by eroding the spirit of equality of opportunity even further.
The solution to gender discrimination is not more gender discrimination in the other direction to ‘even the playing field’.
“People should be hired based on their merits, regardless of what gender they are.”
You’re absolutely right they SHOULD be. But they aren’t. Hence the unfortunate need for quotas.
There is NO need for gender Quotas, full stop.
Gender Quotas is another act of discrimination.
> In a meritocracy, your gender should be irrelevant because guess what, being either a man or a woman doesn’t add to your merit and it shouldn’t impact your ability to get a position.
Yes, but we don’t live in a mertiocracy, if we did this wouldn’t even be a topic for us to discuss, would it.
But quotas actively seek to ensure the best woman for the job, not the best person. I don’t understand the logic of anyone saying the most qualified person should get the job therefore I support gender quotas. It just doesn’t make sense. It’s an issue of equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.
We don’t live in a perfect meritocracy, so your solution is ‘make it worse’?
No. We should perfect our meritocracy instead of trying to eliminate it completely by assigning merit to gender.
Well said Malachi. Remove barriers. I believe that job has been done in the western world. Pretty much. Raising barriers for white males is disgusting, unfair and regressive. But when the target for discrimination is white males that’s “social justice” in the this whacko world we live in today.
> I don’t understand the logic of anyone saying the most qualified person should get the job therefore I support gender quotas
What I mean by that is that a lot of highly qualified women are losing out on the top spots because not because they’re not good enough, but because there’s a social structure in place that see’s men as leaders more than women, even if the woman is more qualified and a better candidate for the position.
Do people really believe that men are just smarter than women and that’s why they have the top positions? That it’s not caused by some other artificial effects (namely discrimination against women)?
Veronica, then why not change the social structures instead of placing a legal bias into the system?
Also I never said that men were in any way better for these positions than women at all but it sure was nice of you to say that I did.
Dave social structures that deeply intrenched take generations to change and the only way to kick start them is through initiatives like quotas.
>Veronica, then why not change the social structures instead of placing a legal bias into the system?
That would of course be the ideal, but how would you suggest that we change social structures? How can we change the bias that there currently is against women in high positions in companies?
I’ve read a lot about gender quotas and the consensus is that it leads to change within companies, leading to a more balanced board in terms of gender. My opinion is that we should put genders quotas in place as a way to chance societal attitudes (in that a company won’t suddenly collapse or start losing money because there are more women at the top), and in about 20 years when those old-school attitudes are gone and both men and women are seen as being equally valid as leaders, then we can get rid of the quotas as they won’t be necessary anymore.
>Also I never said that men were in any way better for these positions than women at all but it sure was nice of you to say that I did.
I wasn’t putting words in your mouth, but the next logical step after “the most qualified person should have the job” and “the people with the jobs are men” is that men are inherently better at it than women. I don’t think you said that or think that, I was just continuing on the train of thought that’s all over this comments section.
Dave, have you watched or read anything to do with the Suffragette movement? The women assaulted, imprisoned, and murdered were fighting so they could be allowed to vote. Vote. Something the established order of/by men deemed they had no to. Have a look at the what the pamphlets against this change claimed would happen; destroyed families and therefore society. Gender quotas aren’t something a lot of women are comfortable with, however, as said, for a real and substantial change they are necessary because this is not happening naturally. Sexism is still rampant in work environments and I for one, even being a seasoned worker, would consider not going for a job jn a male dominated area because when I go to work I want to work, not deal with immature men.
Veronica is another self entitled fembot.
Veronica, next time you want to not put words in my mouth you might want to try not using quotation marks around something I didn’t say.
Felicity, I am well aware of the suffragette movement. Would placing voter quotas have helped or hindered their movement? Would it have made the election process more representative? Also please try not resorting to broad sweeping stereotypes when referring to an entire gender. I’m pretty sure we’re both against that.
Why not have gender quotas for everything then? By this logic we absolutely need them in nursing and teaching. Two female dominated professions. How about refuse disposal? Sewer maintenance? Logging? Should we have the military front line at 50℅ female as well? Or should we simply allow people to make their own choices in life and get to where they want on merit rather than discriminatory quotas? Men and woman gravitate towards different careers. It’s not a problem that more men want to work in construction than women just as more women want to work in nursing so long as there’s equality of opportunity. Which in the vast majority of cases, there is. For both men and women.
I don’t think we should have gender quotas at all, though as we do, so long as gender quotas are only to the advantage of women they will be seen as and absolutely are sexist.
Dave, I didn’t put quotation marks around anything you didn’t say, re-read.
To whoever else commented after: yeah, I’d be delighted to see gender quotas in those professions too, but don’t act like you think those are professions valued by society. You know full well that most “feminine careers” such as teaching and caring are not as respected as they should be, primarily because they are considered feminine.
Maybe you should go back again and have a look, the second fragment of a sentence you have in quotation marks does not appear in any of my comments. So you’re basing your argument off the fact that I said that the best person for the job should get the job. I know we don’t have an ideal world but gender quotas legally solidify the right of a company to refuse to employ somebody vases on gender. The problem needs to be addressed, but this is not the way.
The modern working world may have changed but nothing still says job well done sweetheart like firm, open palmed slap to the behind.
Of course the Journal’s angry right wing nutters are going to wrench themselves into a fit of apoplexy because the word “gender” was mentioned. But this is really about a senior exec of a company deliberately and publicly undermining a policy of that company’s board and the board’s response being perfectly understandable.
I wonder if the Journal are deliberately courting the right wing nutter contingent or if this is actually defective of our society?
Given the number of Ibrahim Halawa articles they churn out you’d think they were courting them. Probably great for their view counters since they get linked to their stormfront buddies to coordinate up/down voting.
Oh for the love of god man, can you put away your “right wing” stick for once.
I meant to write ” Reflective.” Freudian Typo. Rochelle that would explain the brain dead, disgusting attitudes seen in the comments so often here. I hope so anyway because otherwise our country is more messed up than I thought.
I wouldn’t worry, polls like the US election one shows how much of a minority the far right are. Most people just don’t engage with the comments and understandably so given the lunacy that gets said.
http://www.thejournal.ie/us-presidential-race-2897686-Jul2016/
Possibly. But then most people think opening opening our borders to hordes of migrants, is a bad thing. Most people also think gender quotas are also a bad thing. But then they were polls done reputable polling companies, not an online poll conducted by a tabloid news website.
why ‘hordes’? would a less pejorative terms not have been better, more measured?
Horde – a large group of people. Perfectly acceptable label for the mass influx of migrants in the last year or so.
I think I got banned yesterday because I said there are biological differences between men and women in the comments of a Daily Edge article. My comments ain’t posting. Just testing to see for sure.
Hooray, it worked! Sorry Journal, my mistake.
BAN THIS MONSTER
A word association study was done in the states. One set of participants heard a man say ” academy” and the other set heard a woman say “academy”. The test groups were split 50:50 between men and women. The majority of the group that hears a man say academy replied with “school” while the majority of the group that heard the woman replied with “awards”. Its so ingrained that it’s subconscious at this point. Those that don’t believe it exists aren’t nearly as bad as those that don’t believe it’s worth looking in to
So women are more likely to be interested in the sort of popular culture that the academy awards represent. Ground breaking results there. What’s so ingrained? Reality?
Read it again, this time slowly.
What’s so ingrained?
The fact that it’s an automatic response to a word. The fact that it’s different depending on the gender of the person saying it
So what’s ingrained is the fact that men and women are different. Crazy stuff
Brian, read it for a third time.
That should reform him…not. Best one can do is sever the cancer.
If anyone’s interested in actually reading something concrete instead of just moaning about their feelings on men being “oppressed”, this is interesting:
Shall we talk about why the suicide figures for men is higher than women in this country ?
I would guess that men being oppressed more than women would be a factor to go on.
Feminist propaganda?
No thanks.
Tell me, Chris, why? Maybe also tell me how that’s relevant to gender quotas as well?
Yeah, whatever you do Joey make sure you don’t read an academic book. That’ll get you far.
My comment was in response to your Men being Oppressed part.
As for your gender quota part. There was already courts cases of male discrimination in this country, due to gender Quotas, but don’t let that get in your way on your jolly adventure.
Veronica i doubt you will be able to angry young men to read anything that doesn’t confirm their current worldview. apparently women are the oppressors all along. thats a twist worthy of M Knight Shama-whatever
Can’t read eh?
A study where the only difference in the candidates was gender http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/
Judicial bias of all kinds is a problem but that’s not the topic of this article
Neither is gender bias in science
Gender bias in employment is the topic. Gender bias in employment in the science industry is what I’ve linked to. Keep up
Feminists betray their own sex by envying (generally) male traits. Women are better at some things yet men don’t whine about. Getting some ( usually male) authority figure/ system to come and put everything ” right” is so ironic and childish.
have your say