The Pat Kenny Show Thread

JonathanAnon

Lapin wrote: »

I was having a lie in this morning (heavy night), but Beaker woke me up. :mad:

Jesus Lapin, when you're drunk you go home with anybody dont you... :P

Lapin

Only on Thursdays.

Harry Angstrom

armchair fusilier wrote: »

I quite sure Pat is aware of these of reports, but he chose to imply that there all these people out there turning down jobs because they pay less than the benefits they would lose . This simply is not the case. Pat is prone to being very selective in what stats he uses when it suits him.

Pat seems to use any opportunity he can to have a go at people on social welfare, while at the same time himself and his buddy Paddy O'Gorman have gotten plenty of mileage out of preying on people's misery and using it as a filler for his show.

serfboard

armchair fusilier wrote: »

Two recent ERSI reports found that the only people who are better off on the dole are those with 2 or more children and are also claiming rent supplement. These make up just 3% of those on the live register.

Yeah, but I bet they make up 100% of the people causing trouble in that estate.

In regards to the other poster's comment about who'd employ them, that's true. Economists consider 4% unemployment as full employment because about 4% of people are "unemployable". They didn't have jobs during the boom, they don't have work now, they never will. The only thing you can do is to try and ensure that their offspring don't get into the same rut.

And, in the meantime, if they do consistently cause trouble, consider moving them to "scum villages" as the Dutch are (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2012/dec/04/liberal-amsterdam-plans-scum-villages).

P. Breathnach

serfboard wrote: »

... Economists consider 4% unemployment as full employment because about 4% of people are "unemployable"...

That 4% (which I agree is an generally-accepted figure) should not be regarded as equivalent to suggesting that 4% of the nominal labour force is anti-social. It's a mixed group, including people genuinely between jobs, people who are not capable of working usefully but who are not particularly troublesome to their neighbours, and some anti-social people.

serfboard

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That 4% (which I agree is an generally-accepted figure) should not be regarded as equivalent to suggesting that 4% of the nominal labour force is anti-social. It's a mixed group, including people genuinely between jobs, people who are not capable of working usefully but who are not particularly troublesome to their neighbours, and some anti-social people.

Agreed. I didn't mean to suggest that all of the 4% are anti-social, but that the anti-social are unemployable. And if you take the dole off them (the anti-socials), what do you think they're going to do? Start stealing is what. Then, either individuals pay the price, or society pays the price for when they have to be kept in prison at a cost of how much? per annum.

And don't talk about community service - these people won't show up to work so they're not going to show up for community service either.

Callan57

serfboard wrote: »

Agreed. I didn't mean to suggest that all of the 4% are anti-social, but that the anti-social are unemployable. And if you take the dole off them (the anti-socials), what do you think they're going to do? Start stealing is what. Then, either individuals pay the price, or society pays the price for when they have to be kept in prison at a cost of how much? per annum.

And don't talk about community service - these people won't show up to work so they're not going to show up for community service either.

Isn't that exactly the problem, we throw our hands in the air and say nothing can be done & don't they know it that too. Just your tough luck if you live beside these people. So what do you think the law-abiding people who are being terrorised and their lives being made a misery will do? There was a time, not too long ago, when they would have turned to their local well know "one of the boys" & the issue would be sorted - painfully but definitely sorted. Is that what we want to go back to?

armchair fusilier

serfboard wrote: »

In regards to the other poster's comment about who'd employ them, that's true. Economists consider 4% unemployment as full employment because about 4% of people are "unemployable". They didn't have jobs during the boom, they don't have work now, they never will. The only thing you can do is to try and ensure that their offspring don't get into the same rut.

If you go back to the height of the boom...say the start of 2007...the unemployment rate was 4.2%, but the long term unemployment rate was just 1.3%. So only 1.3%, or around 28,000 people. hadn't worked in the preceding year. As has already been said, at any given point in time there will be people between jobs. Even in a boom it can take time to find a new job.

Callan57

Ah what a surprise - now the social welfare crowd don't have to pay fines either. Sure why not let the poor fools who are getting out of bed in the morning to go to work pay for everything.:mad:

mike65

If the cops had a word with Paddy would he spill the beans do you think?

Bellerstring

This is quality radio.
Top marks!

Harry Angstrom

I wonder how long it would take for the Government to recover the €1 million bonus paid to Fingers Fingleton at a rate of €2 per week?

It would only take about 9,500 years. They'd better make a start on that one as well.

mike65

My arse is low, is so low.

europa11

"A Woman's Heart" - 20 years on:eek:.....still sounds as bad now as it did then.

Not that we won't get a few "wows!" form Pat seeing as The Sisterhood have taken over the studio to give us a few bars of misery.

JonathanAnon

"wow, what a depressing, misandric sound you have"

Lapin

JonathanAnon wrote: »

"wow, what a depressing, misandric sound you have"

Could equally apply to the interview with Norris on today's programme.

touts

Poor David Norris whining about the "undemocratic" "tyrranical" decision to abolish the senate. Well he was happy to slam the door to the senate in the faces of hundreds of thousands of graduates who were given a constitutional right to vote in senate elections 30 years ago. Now he finds himself on the same side of that locked door as us. Pity about him. At least he has a massive pension to ease his slide into obscurity and irrelevance.

Harry Angstrom

Michael McDowell must be burying his head in his hands every time he hears David Norris being interviewed these days. Great stuff.

mike65

Is Fidelma Healy Eames the unacknowledged love child of Imelda Marcos and Pee Flynn?

Lapin

Doubt it.

Neither could afford her.

mike65

Gosh 10 year olds are so talented!

Callan57

We have no money for special needs children but Paddy thinks Social Welfare should pay to have tattoos removed ... is this guy for real?:rolleyes:

IvyTheTerrible

Callan57 wrote: »

We have no money for special needs children but Paddy thinks Social Welfare should pay to have tattoos removed ... is this guy for real?:rolleyes:

Well they pay to fix your fridge or cooker and help you out with funeral costs so why wouldn't they pay for tattoo removal! :rolleyes:

touts

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Well they pay to fix your fridge or cooker and help you out with funeral costs so why wouldn't they pay for tattoo removal! :rolleyes:

They would probably give them out like buggies. A new tatoo removal grant with every new application for child benefit.

Howya miss. I used ta luv Darran, the da of those two little ones over there, but now I love Deco and we're specting twins. Can I get a few quid to change me Darran tat for a Deco tat. NO! wha du ya mean NO! Sure didn ya pay to let me get the Anto tat off when I met Darran. I had four chislers with Anto and ya gave me money to get him off me arm, and him been da luv of me life before he ran back to his wife, da dirty jezzable. I only have da two with Darran and you won't help me. Sure you can't make me look at that bastard's name for the rest of me life and me only 23.

Callan57

touts wrote: »

They would probably give them out like buggies. A new tatoo removal grant with every new application for child benefit.

Howya miss. I used ta luv Darran, the da of those two little ones over there, but now I love Deco and we're specting twins. Can I get a few quid to change me Darran tat for a Deco tat. NO! wha du ya mean NO! Sure didn ya pay to let me get the Anto tat off when I met Darran. I had four chislers with Anto and ya gave me money to get him off me arm, and him been da luv of me life before he ran back to his wife, da dirty jezzable. I only have da two with Darran and you won't help me. Sure you can't make me look at that bastard's name for the rest of me life and me only 23.

That would be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth

delaad

Callan57 wrote: »

That would be funny if it wasn't so close to the truth

Young, single, expectant, multi-partnered, council-house dwelling mother, who already has a boy in first class and a girl in junior infants, is making her case for placement of the child on the way to a despairing principal. In answer to his question, "Why?"; she said, "I thought I'ld go for the aluminiums".

Somewhere in Ireland, circa 1993.

Callan57

The multi-pensioned Mary O'Rourke again ... are we never going to be delivered from this womans waffle? :mad:

Bits_n_Bobs

God the bloody seanad I thought we were done with this crap now that the eejit politicians have sodded off on their holidays....

touts

Oh god Simon Covney. The most passionless, dull, man in politics. He'll argue for anything he is told to argue for but never seems to believe in anything. It's like listening to a sat nav.

Callan57

Mary O'Rourke "I can't come in here argueing for something I don't believe it" .... what a load of bull she spent her whole political life argueing and defending anything her FF masters sent her out to defend.