TONIGHT With Vincent Browne

sesna

Koloman wrote: »

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

I thought Niamh Horan was the lowest point the programme would ever see.

JonathanAnon

Koloman wrote: »

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

She's certainly very forthright and confident all the same.. Herself, Leo Varadkar and James Reilly could be running the country in the next few years...

Niamh Lyons is cute.. Mary Fitzgerald is still my favourite token eye candy for the lads though, even though she's a serious journalist.


hmmmmmm..

parasite

sesna wrote: »

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.

that was quite a burn when he then said 'the same caravan he had been going to for 20 years ...'

JonathanAnon

parasite wrote: »

that was quite a burn when he then said 'the same caravan he had been going to for 20 years ...'

ah she came across as childish, when Sam asked "Is the Taoiseach not entitled to a holiday" and she said (paraphrase) "He is entitled to a holiday, but we are entitled to know where he is".. very silly woman. The thoughts of her sitting outside his caravan having followed him in the Yaris.. and this was her proudest moment..

sesna

parasite wrote: »

that was quite a burn when he then said 'the same caravan he had been going to for 20 years ...'

Smyth showed how he rated her intellect with all the smug putdowns. Horan was completely oblivious to what was happening.

Really funny stuff

tampopo

Elmo wrote: »

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

gosh I missed this during the WC. Classic. Must say, he does get Brian Lenihan's voice to a tee!

yeah, Horan the other night was comical. she got a bit uptight when asked if she ever flirted during an interview. The chap to her left admitted it no bother!!! funny woman.... And I didn't realise that Sam smyth had said "the same caravan he'd been going to for 20 years" ha ha ha!!!!

I live Vincent Browne's programme a lot. it's a bit of fun....and interesting and entertaining....

JonathanAnon

tampopo wrote: »

Horan the other night was comical. she got a bit uptight when asked if she ever flirted during an interview.

Yeah, she should have taken it as a jocose compliment, but would rather adopt the "I'm a serious journalist and I'm here on journalistic merit, how dare you say that I would use my prettiness to further my career" position... She's one of those girls that dyes her hair blonde, drops a few pounds and thinks she's god's gift.

What was more worrying was I facebooked her and found that I have two friends in common with her..

Gekko

She seemed to take the whole thing a bit too seriously I think and Sam was playing on that as well.

Funny that you have two friends in common with her.

Niamh Lyons is a far more interesting panellist/guest - out of curiosity, does anyone know if she's any relation to Tom Lyons of the Sunday Times who is on there sometimes?

amdublin

I just flicked on at the point they were going through the papers.

Sam finished up by asking her which story appealed to her. She strung a nonsensical sentence together about Britney Spears being told by father to wear (or not to wear) a bra.

She didn't come across as the sharpest tbh.

irishh_bob

Gekko wrote: »

She seemed to take the whole thing a bit too seriously I think and Sam was playing on that as well.

Funny that you have two friends in common with her.

Niamh Lyons is a far more interesting panellist/guest - out of curiosity, does anyone know if she's any relation to Tom Lyons of the Sunday Times who is on there sometimes?

niamh lyons is indeed an up and coming young journalist , seems wise beyond her years , shes dead sexy too

Aidric

irishh_bob wrote: »

niamh lyons is indeed an up and coming young journalist , seems wise beyond her years , shes dead sexy too

Writes for a rag and has notions beyond her station, I would say. She fits the alarmist profile of a Mail journo, that's for sure.

JonathanAnon

I think it was clear from Sam Smyth's shows that he doesnt think of the tabloid journalists as serious journalists.

Niamh Lyons is pleasant, pretty, bright, and competent enough that you would have her on again.

jimmyw

Could not believe that 2 of my favorite women were on last week, namely Lucinda C and Niamh Ly.I dont care what they had to say but they were very easy on the eye MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!! delicious :cool:

Gekko

jimmyw wrote: »

Could not believe that 2 of my favorite women were on last week, namely Lucinda C and Niamh Ly.I dont care what they had to say but they were very easy on the eye MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!! delicious :cool:

lol

JonathanAnon

Could not believe that 2 of my favorite women were on last week, namely Lucinda C and Niamh Ly.I dont care what they had to say but they were very easy on the eye MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!! delicious

Just wait til he discovers Internet porn..

jimmyw

Gekko wrote: »

lol

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Just wait til he discovers Internet porn..

Are ye alright there? Ye dont want to lie to down there and have a rest do ye.Mind yourselves there:rolleyes::D Whats porn:)

PKen

It's on late (11:25) tonight. The good news is, that Sarah Carey is presenting. I suppose 40 minutes of herself beats an hour of the other deadbeats. However, I'd like to see Kevin Myers on again before Vincent Browne gets back.

JonathanAnon

PKen wrote: »

It's on late (11:25) tonight..

So do we work with the usual scheduled time + 10 mins algoritm that we normally adopt.

PKen

JonathanAnon wrote: »

So do we work with the usual scheduled time + 10 mins algoritm that we normally adopt.

Yes, that'd be about right. It's on teletext as 11:20 for "Nightly News". So I suppose after the news headlines, Sarah's intro and ads, I'd say 11:30 for the actual start. Hopefully she'll have a decent panel.

JonathanAnon

Where the fuk that Barry Andrews idiot, isnt this law his baby (if you excuse the pun)... ?

PKen

Not really my subject tonight. Reminds me of the night I got tickets for (Pat Kenny's) The Frontline - couldn't really comment because I didn't know enough about the issues.
However, the review of the papers has touched my nerve. It's the issue of the shortfall in funding for education. Bring back fees, I say. Tired of subsidising the education of Solicitors, Accountants and Civil Servants.

Elmo

PKen wrote: »

However, the review of the papers has touched my nerve. It's the issue of the shortfall in funding for education. Bring back fees, I say. Tired of subsidising the education of Solicitors, Accountants and Civil Servants.

Nurses, Doctors, Teachers, Lectures etc etc but then through out Primary and Secondary School we educate everybody for free. FAS should be got rid of not because of the money spent by their executives but because I don't want to pay for Builders and Trades men's education.

Your just going to have to pay more Civil Servants to manage the grants system for the very poor, while putting more and more Middle Class people in debt. And since the government fund all colleges in some shape or other we continue to pay for these Solicitors, Accountants and Civil Servants you are talking about.

You don't need any qualifications to become a Civil Servant, and they have plenty of courses they can do when they are working for the government, for Free.

PKen

Elmo wrote: »

Nurses, Doctors, Teachers, Lectures etc etc but then through out Primary and Secondary School we educate everybody for free. FAS should be got rid of not because of the money spent by their executives but because I don't want to pay for Builders and Trades men's education.

Your just going to have to pay more Civil Servants to manage the grants system for the very poor, while putting more and more Middle Class people in debt. And since the government fund all colleges in some shape or other we continue to pay for these Solicitors, Accountants and Civil Servants you are talking about.

You don't need any qualifications to become a Civil Servant, and they have plenty of courses they can do when they are working for the government, for Free.

Haven't you been reading the papers? We're facing a serious funding crisis. Students will have to cough up a bit more. Why don't you want someone who'll potentially earn a high salary to pay towards that Educational investment? I do get your point (to some extent) about FAS. However, it's stange you're not opposed to the bureaucratic waste at the top.
A universal system is good in theory, but I support the concept of it only in Health - not Education. In order for it to work, taxes would have to be raised and that's not such a good idea in a recession. Public expenditure on education has to reduce, because of falling revenues.
I don't buy your Civil Service argument. How would it cost us more money to re-introduce a fairer means system? The departments are overstaffed (you'll disagree, I'm sure). Let's migrate some staff from where they're not busy over to Education. This mentality of "It Can't Be Done" because of blah, blah, blah etc. maddens me. If there's the Political Will to bring about change and flexibility within the civil service, I don't see why we cannot achieve this. It's absurd to have this almost "Stalinist" way of doing (not doing) things. The current setup is crazy. As a previous poster Koloman commented, it's an "Everybody Gets It Or Nobody Gets It" system.
You say "You don't need any qualifications to become a Civil Servant". Correct - you just need the right political connections. The courses the civil service do are not "Free". The taxpayer pays for them. As I've said before, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Elmo

My point was a sarcastic point about FAS. I.E. the reason it should be shut was due to the miscellaneous expenses paid to executives, not because as an organisation it does help to train people. (I just wrote it the opposite way round) :rolleyes:

I don't buy your Civil Service argument. How would it cost us more money to re-introduce a fairer means system? The departments are overstaffed (you'll disagree, I'm sure). Let's migrate some staff from where they're not busy over to Education. This mentality of "It Can't Be Done" because of blah, blah, blah etc. maddens me. If there's the Political Will to bring about change and flexibility within the civil service, I don't see why we cannot achieve this. It's absurd to have this almost "Stalinist" way of doing (not doing) things. The current setup is crazy. As a previous poster Koloman commented, it's an "Everybody Gets It Or Nobody Gets It" system.

If you had read my previous post on the subject you would have noted that I suggested that the Large "unfair" bureaucracy behind the grants system could be changed to support and insure quality at primary and second levels. Move those in the Grants system over to the Primary and Second level schools. My whole point was about getting rid of large bureaucracy.

YES IT CAN

You say "You don't need any qualifications to become a Civil Servant". Correct - you just need the right political connections. The courses the civil service do are not "Free". The taxpayer pays for them. As I've said before, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

That is a load of BS. The Civil Service exams are open to all, there are a few internal civil service exams but you have to pass of all those Civil Service exams long before you can even get to an interview. There are major problems with Civil Service selection but it isn't down to "who you know".

Free for civil servants to do should they want to, my point was that many Civil Servants have never obtained or intend to obtain 3rd level qualifications.

And no matter how it works out, PLCs, ITs and Universities will always look for funding and that funding will indirectly fund Solicitors, Accountants and Civil Servants.

But no you introduce fees. Let the rich pay go to publicly funded colleges, let the middle classes stay away and let the good functioning Public Service in VECs and Councils administer a large unfair bureaucratic system of mandatory means tests for the poor. When they could be put to good use running the Primary and Secondary school system.

Johnny Utah

Sorry Elmo, definitely is a case of 'who you know', although you could say that about a lot of things in this country.

Elmo

Johnny Utah wrote: »

Sorry Elmo, definitely is a case of 'who you know', although you could say that about a lot of things in this country.

Were are we getting this from "who you know" to get into the civil service (or promotions)? Would mind but the private sector is mainly based on who you know.

PKen

Elmo wrote: »

Were are we getting this from "who you know" to get into the civil service (or promotions)? Would mind but the private sector is mainly based on who you know.

You mean, you've never heard the term "Jobs For The Boys". Never heard about political appointees to Civil Service departments and Semi State boards. You're quite young I'd say, but over time you'll learn. Welcome to the school of hard knocks. Admitedly, it goes on everywhere. But I'm shocked you didn't realise it was (since the foundation of the state) going on in the Public Sector. :eek:

JonathanAnon

Elmo wrote: »

Were are we getting this from "who you know" to get into the civil service (or promotions)? Would mind but the private sector is mainly based on who you know.

I wouldnt give a fk about the private sector, we dont have to pay for the private sector.. we have to pay for the Callely's, Dan Boyle's etc who are handed their jobs...

Elmo

PKen wrote: »

You mean, you've never heard the term "Jobs For The Boys". Never heard about political appointees to Civil Service departments and Semi State boards.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the general population of Civil Servants not the Big Wigs, here's me always looking out for the little guy.

I wouldnt give a fk about the private sector, we dont have to pay for the private sector.. we have to pay for the Callely's, Dan Boyle's etc who are handed their jobs...

Not civil servants (I didn't realize Dan Boyle was in the middle of a expensive scandal he prob should just for the next few years, wouldn't say the other appointees need to worry, even Calley will prob be back). Micheal McDowell is possibly the best example of what we are talking about here when he became AG. I don't know we seem to be paying for a lot of the Private sector at the moment.

JonathanAnon

It has nothing to do with expenses. . I picked out Dan Boyle and Callely as two examples of people who were voted out by the electorate, yet were appointed by their friends in Government to their 70k Seanad jobs.. i.e. jobs for the boys... We have no choice to pay for these fkrs, and a lot of people on different boards of different state and semi-state bodies who are picked because they are friends of the establishment or FF..

TDs have a mandate (as they were elected), some senators have at least some mandate (as the are elected by colleges, interest groups)... my problem is with people like the aforementioned that have not been elected, in fact most have been elected OUT, yet still they are on the public payroll, funded by the taxpayer..