TONIGHT With Vincent Browne

Elmo

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Cmon, spit it out Elmo...



It was out of season for the LLS, and there was no other show to do it on..?

But why a chat show? Fine if it was Prime Time or even Tonight but Saturday Night???? Think back to the last time someone appeared on a chat show about a murder.

JonathanAnon

Elmo wrote: »

Think back to the last time someone appeared on a chat show about a murder.

Boyzone appeared recently with a song that they proceeded to murder. Does that count?

Elmo

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Boyzone appeared recently with a song that they proceeded to murder. Does that count?

Yeah, I rang the guards myself, they told me that Boyzone have a few charges pending before they can proceed with my complaint. :rolleyes:

A murder in the Naul.

JonathanAnon

Ah good, a studio full of men.. we might get some sensible conversation.

baldbear

Desmond should grow that tache into a proper handlebar.

Gekko

Anybody else disappointed that Sam Smyth is back in the presenter's chair next week?

In my view he was pretty dull and boring the last week he did it. Would have preferred Sarah Carey or Kevin Myers to sit in for another week rather than Smyth.

Agricola

Ive actually given up watching this since Vincent Browne went on holiday. Usually I watch it most nights but just find it incredibly boring now. Watching Vincent needle politicians is the real draw for me!

Koloman

Sam Smyth presenting for a second time this week. Sarah Carey will be back next week.

PKen

What a c**p, uninspiring panel on tonight. A populist (Alex White L) and two Civil War party decendants (Brian Hayes FG & Thomas Byrne FF).
It's at times like this when I say, come back Michael McDowell - all is forgiven. We need more diversity in these debates. Bring back the PDs.
At least Sarah Carey is on next week. Stan is pretty bad tonight, isn't he?

Koloman

PKen wrote: »

What a c**p, uninspiring panel on tonight. A populist (Alex White L) and two Civil War party decendants (Brian Hayes FG & Thomas Byrne FF).
It's at times like this when I say, come back Michael McDowell - all is forgiven. We need more diversity in these debates. Bring back the PDs.
At least Sarah Carey is on next week. Stan is pretty bad tonight, isn't he?

Well Sam is a pal of Michael McDowell so maybe he might persuade him to come on the show one night.

Agree with you about Alex White.

JonathanAnon

lads, I missed it tonight, is it worth watching back.?. Thomas Byrne & Brian Hayes I find indiscernible.

PKen

JonathanAnon wrote: »

lads, I missed it tonight, is it worth watching back.?. Thomas Byrne & Brian Hayes I find indiscernible.

No, it aint worth watching back - you missed nothing. Overall, a show with lightweights. Hopefully tommorows will be a tad better.

Gekko

PKen wrote: »

No, it aint worth watching back - you missed nothing. Overall, a show with lightweights. Hopefully tommorows will be a tad better.

No - last night's was shíté as well.

Sam Smyth is a terrible host...I have every respect for him as a print journalist. But he seems mediocre on radio and on TV he's even worse: I would describe it as doddery and even more mediocre.

They should have never let him on there.

JonathanAnon

Gekko wrote: »

No - last night's was shíté as well. Sam Smyth is a terrible host...I have every respect for him as a print journalist. But he seems mediocre on radio and on TV he's even worse: I would describe it as doddery and even more mediocre.

Yeah was an awful show. Dont like that conceited Niamh Horan one. She's proof that any average looking woman can dye her hair and think she's a supermodel... I remember being amazed at this article that she wrote Dont Hate Me Because I'm Thin.

She got in a real strop when Sam asked her "do you ever flirt during interviews". She asked Sam to repeat one question, which she still didnt understand on second hearing.

The other two guests were just boring.

Elmo

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Yeah was an awful show. Dont like that conceited Niamh Horan one. She's proof that any average looking woman can dye her hair and think she's a supermodel... I remember being amazed at this article that she wrote Dont Hate Me Because I'm Thin.

She got in a real strop when Sam asked her "do you ever flirt during interviews". She asked Sam to repeat one question, which she still didnt understand on second hearing.

The other two guests were just boring.

She was a very quick defender of the newspapers. Had her shepel (sp?) down to a PR tee. I couldn't tell if she had an opinion of her own.

The question was: Do you think the public let down the Irish Times?

This question is in relation to the amount of coverage given to Larry Murphy's release by the "Red Tops" and their defense that its what the public wanted to read about, The Irish Times didn't run with as much coverage of the news, so Sam wanted to know if the Public had let down the Irish Times.

JonathanAnon

Elmo wrote: »

The question was: Do you think the public let down the Irish Times? This question is in relation to the amount of coverage given to Larry Murphy's release by the "Red Tops" and their defense that its what the public wanted to read about, The Irish Times didn't run with as much coverage of the news, so Sam wanted to know if the Public had let down the Irish Times.

Think it's spiel, Elmo... Yeah, to be honest, I first thought Sam meant to say "Were the Irish people let down by the Irish times?"... i.e. by not covering the Larry Murphy as much as the other papers. But when he repeated it, I understood "Were the Irish Times let down by the Irish people?" to mean that the Irish Times would not fall for the sensationalist coverage that was given to a story that probably really wasnt the biggest news of the day.

Niamh Horan had a bad night at the office all round. She's clearly not the intellect she would like to see herself as. As well as that embarrassing incident where she didnt understand the question (and Sam just went to the break instead of asking a third time .. lol), her argument that the media doing a great public service with their massive coverage of Larry Murphy was completely refuted by the other member of the panel.

BettePorter

car crash telly......watching sam smyth is torturous........it's as if there's a 10 second time delay from the autocue to his brain to his mouth. he can't string a coherent sentence together without stalling stuttering or getting the words back to front. meanwhile that horan one is vacous eejit. when she wasn't trying to infer sexism she was acting like a bimbo rather than a journalist. is she actually a journalist btw? every single sentence she began with ' absolutely ' and when reviewing the newspapers what did she find the most pertinent news item of the day ........pakistan? the cork tragedy? Banks ? leaving cert ? No ! apparently Britney Spears is back on the scene ! she actually said when asked what she's found of interest in the tomorrows spreads........'well there's some great showbusiness news on the front of the mirror, which as you know i take a great interest in'.........oh please.
They would have been better giving vincent a hollier and played re runs of ricki lake for the duration ! i find myself watching now just so i don't miss the gaffes !

Elmo

BettePorter wrote: »

car crash telly......watching sam smyth is torturous........it's as if there's a 10 second time delay from the autocue to his brain to his mouth.

It looks to me like he needs new glasses, for the autoque. He is fine when talking in general.

she actually said when asked what she's found of interest in the tomorrows spreads........'well there's some great showbusiness news on the front of the mirror, which as you know i take a great interest in'.........oh please

Or as Vincent would put it, "I have to get sick in my hands" lol.

Have to put this back on

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybhroG408SU

Gekko

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Yeah was an awful show. Dont like that conceited Niamh Horan one.

I couldn't possibly comment since I write for a different section of the same newspaper.

JonathanAnon

Gekko wrote: »

I couldn't possibly comment since I write for a different section of the same newspaper.

Are you in the Larry Murphy department?

PKen

Good one tonight. Did ye all miss it? Colm McCarthy (quite rightly) pointed out the insanity of "Free Third Level Education" brought in by Labour. He is puzzled (and so am I) as to: why a Left Wing party legislated, so that well off people would have their children's fees paid for by the state.

Elmo

PKen wrote: »

Good one tonight. Did ye all miss it? Colm McCarthy (quite rightly) pointed out the insanity of "Free Third Level Education" brought in by Labour. He is puzzled (and so am I) as to: why a Left Wing party legislated, so that well off people would have their children's fees paid for by the state.

I am puzzled that everyone thinks that people back in 1996 were all well off ????? We had just been through 2 of the worst economic decades and 1996 we were just coming out of it. As I haven't seen the show I cannot comment on Colm McCarthy's comments, however he does seem pretty happy to work for the state and a Third Level institution. The re-introduction of fees would not increase the funding of 3rd level. This being the same man on another show that congradulated McDowell on making sure the bertie blow didn't go ahead, yet forgot about the price paid for land by the Dept. Justice while he was in office, well over the odds even for 2007.

This insanity he speaks helped me and many others get a 3rd level qualification.

PKen

Elmo wrote: »

I am puzzled that everyone thinks that people back in 1996 were all well off ????? We had just been through 2 of the worst economic decades and 1996 we were just coming out of it. As I haven't seen the show I cannot comment on Colm McCarthy's comments, however he does seem pretty happy to work for the state and a Third Level institution. The re-introduction of fees would not increase the funding of 3rd level. This being the same man on another show that congradulated McDowell on making sure the bertie blow didn't go ahead, yet forgot about the price paid for land by the Dept. Justice while he was in office, well over the odds even for 2007.

This insanity he speaks helped me and many others get a 3rd level qualification.

I'm not trying to stick up for him, but he's saying what I've been saying since it came in. I agree with you (to some extent) - many struggling families HAVE benefited. But the central point still remains: a Universal (free) system ultimately benefits the most privileged in society. Similar to the Children's Allowance argument - would you not agree?
When it was introduced, I expressed reservations (and I was a Labour Party member then). I was also convinced that, we should have focused more on Primary and Secondary education. In fact, going by todays Leaving Cert results and high failure rates in Maths and Science subjects, this alone would seem to bear out my latter point.
There's also the fact, that we're facing into a serious funding crisis in all Third Level instititions if we don't re-introduce Fees. Colm McCarthy did say, any students needing assistance could be helped by a Grant, Bursary or Loan system. I don't see any problem with that, do you? Nothing in life is realistically free - someone, somewhere pays the bill.

Elmo

PKen wrote: »

I'm not trying to stick up for him, but he's saying what I've been saying since it came in. I agree with you (to some extent) - many struggling families HAVE benefited. But the central point still remains: a Universal (free) system ultimately benefits the most privileged in society. Similar to the Children's Allowance argument - would you not agree?
When it was introduced, I expressed reservations (and I was a Labour Party member then). I was also convinced that, we should have focused more on Primary and Secondary education. In fact, going by todays Leaving Cert results and high failure rates in Maths and Science subjects, this alone would seem to bear out my latter point.
There's also the fact, that we're facing into a serious funding crisis in all Third Level instititions if we don't re-introduce Fees. Colm McCarthy did say, any students needing assistance could be helped by a Grant, Bursary or Loan system. I don't see any problem with that, do you? Nothing in life is realistically free - someone, somewhere pays the bill.

Universal Free Education and Child Allowance reduces the need for huge amounts of Bureaucratic red tape which costs the state just as much money as providing the service universally.

Take for example the grant system. A huge bureaucratic system in which the state through VECs and Councils pay millions to run a complicated, often frustrating and time consuming system.

The grant system was changed again in 1998 when the government ruled that ITs (RTCs) should not have to keep account of student attendance for the grant. Universities were unwilling to keep such records since they felt that it was up to the student to turn up to class so rather than enforce registration at Universities the government deregulated the IT registration system (IMO bad move).

What should be the case is universal grants based on attendance in all Colleges and Universities (bar fee paying colleges). Giving all students free education and €80 a week to go to college (if you only turn up for 50% of classes you only get paid for 50%), and the €80 only applies to the weeks your in college. (€80 is just a figure I picked). This saves on the Bureaucratic system in place for such grants. Universities that complain about the new system should be told that they have to provide attendance figures for their non-EU students in relation to immigration laws and there is no reason why they can't extend such bean counting to the general student population at no extra cost.

But what do you do with the Bureaucratic staff????? Simple as we move away from Church (Catholic and Protestant) governing schools those staff in the 3rd level grants sections should be moved to Primary and Secondary Schools Sections to monitor schools and school results.

Primary schools should be tested based on final exam of students for the consumption of the schools alone, to look at the problems facing their students entering secondary schools. (It should not be used to stream students as a child of 12 will mature over the next 5 years and even at 13 they maybe a much more mature person able for Secondary School).

I would also blame our Junior Cert system on failures due to the high number of students taking Ordinary papers in non-core subjects which under the Inter Cert had common level, back in 1994 it was envisaged that 30% of students would take Ordinary level non-core subjects however it now seems that only 30% of students take Higher level in non-core subjects.

Languages should have 2 options open to them Literature (for fluent speakers as in the current English and Irish LC courses) and Structure (for beginners as in the current foreign language courses).

Sorry for the rant and going kind off topic. Don't move this to politics thanks.

There's also the fact, that we're facing into a serious funding crisis in all Third Level instititions if we don't re-introduce Fees.

If we re-introduce fees Third Level institutions will see the amount of money coming from government reduce, the state will not continue to pay free-fees to 3rd level institutions while students pay. This idea that the government would continue to keep their funding at the same level with the re-intro of fees in complete idiocy. Student numbers will drop due to re-intro of fees causing a reduction in the amount of money coming from Students. And the Bureaucratic system will have another layer added to it.

Koloman

PKen wrote: »

Good one tonight. Did ye all miss it? Colm McCarthy (quite rightly) pointed out the insanity of "Free Third Level Education" brought in by Labour. He is puzzled (and so am I) as to: why a Left Wing party legislated, so that well off people would have their children's fees paid for by the state.

Colm made a great point. Why is the state incapable of giving poorer students a grant while reintroducing tutiution fees for the better off? Good question!

It's either everyone gets it or no-one gets it in the current set-up.

Koloman

Elmo wrote: »

This insanity he speaks helped me and many others get a 3rd level qualification.

So I am presuming you now have a well paid job thanks to our taxes helping you get a good university education. It only seems fair that some sort of payback to the state be made.

Colm did describe as "madness" that the better-off get free third level education when universities are crying out for better funding.

Elmo

Koloman wrote: »

So I am presuming you now have a well paid job thanks to our taxes helping you get a good university education. It only seems fair that some sort of payback to the state be made.

Colm did describe as "madness" that the better-off get free third level education when universities are crying out for better funding.

It seems to me that Colm wants to cause problems for the middle classes as has been the case for the past number of years.

Richer students can pay, while the less well off will get grants leaving middle class parents and students under fierce pressure to try to go to 3rd level.

How much money is spent on the administration of grants for poorer students? Would that money be better spend on our Primary and Second Level schools? In terms of restructuring the public service I believe universal grants which are administered by universities through their registrations office is a much better way to go. Get rid of the child allowance up to 19 because your child is in full time education. Provide back up services for Primary and Second levels.

And yes you are right I am paying back all of the money I got for all of my education from Primary up to Third Level, my ability to pay taxes now pays from my education and someone else currently in the system.

The re-introduction of fees will not increase 3rd level government subvention which would only pay for Richer students to continued to be fund even if it is indirectly.

Gekko

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Are you in the Larry Murphy department?

No I don't write about crime.

sesna

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Yeah was an awful show. Dont like that conceited Niamh Horan one. She's proof that any average looking woman can dye her hair and think she's a supermodel... I remember being amazed at this article that she wrote Dont Hate Me Because I'm Thin.

She got in a real strop when Sam asked her "do you ever flirt during interviews". She asked Sam to repeat one question, which she still didnt understand on second hearing.

The other two guests were just boring.

Dont know if this has been mentioned already, but when Sam Smyth asked the panelists of their proudest journalistic work to date, Horan's reply was finding Biffo on holidays in his caravan a few years ago. She was deadly serious too.

When asked the question "Do you think the public let down the Irish times?", Horan replied "I don't understand the question". She was asked again and once again replied "I dont understand" to which Smyth replied "Well there you go."

Koloman

Enda Kenny's favourite TD on tonight! Lucinda Creighton.