What happened on 95fm with Derek Daly?

Nockz

SU posted he'd be on with Joe Nash in 5-10 mins. I click on 15 mins later and a song is playing after Derek hung up or something?

Was anyone there from the start?

http://www.live95fm.ie/boxtube/ <- Should anyone want to tune in. Sometexts were read out and they were largely defending Joe and speaking bad about Derek.

Deano7788

When Derek came on, he started demanding that Joe apologise for claiming he had gone to ground for the week. When Joe refused a few times and said he had nothing to apologise for, Derek hung up.

Nockz

Deano7788 wrote: »

When Derek came on, he started demanding that Joe apologise for claiming he had gone to ground for the week. When Joe refused a few times and said he had nothing to apologise for, Derek hung up.

Classy shtuff...

Edit: After listening some more, there seems to have been much criticism on Derek Daly's attitude and manners. Every few minutes they were just reading out more texts saying how "he failed to handle himself like a president" and indeed "if that's what our SU President is doing, no wonder we're the way we are."

shabouwcaw

looks like ULSU need to get themselves a Malcolm Tucker.

Nockz

He'll be on Clare FM at 1.30pm.

Off at 1.32pm AM I RIGHT?

johnryano

listening in now. clare.fm and live95 are fairly morbid. all death notices and rip this and that.

Nockz

Daly is handling himself mighty well. Relieved.

johnryano

yeah good job derek came across very well

freyners

anyone want to give a summary of what happened for those who didnt hear it?

wnolan1992

Do live95 do podcasts does anyone know? If I'm awake at 2am I'll try and record the repeat

brucechan

Gone to ground alright. No accountability! Some legacy.

J_E

http://soundcloud.com/cydoniac/live95fm-derek-daly-call

The clip in question. Sounds fair to me, and it looks like Joe Nash wasn't willing to give any such apology.

wnolan1992

Fair play to Derek. Have to say I laughed when Nash was like "Well, there are other issues I have to deal with", would have been class if Daly just said "Yeah, well the current issue I'm dealing with currently is trying to facilitate the raising of x,000EUR for charity. *hangs up*" :pac:


Although, even though I think he was right to do it, it probably won't help the general attitude among residents over Charity Week...

Cian8616

Does anybody have a recording of Derek speaking on Clare FM?

gaf1983

Cydoniac wrote: »

http://soundcloud.com/cydoniac/live95fm-derek-daly-call

The clip in question. Sounds fair to me, and it looks like Joe Nash wasn't willing to give any such apology.

Just had a listen to it there. I thought he seemed to be prioritising his ego over representing the views of ULSU to be honest. Granted, he was upset by Joe Nash saying he was gone to ground, but I think he should have just stated the reasons why he was unavailable for an interview, then move on to deal with the issues in the particular interview. The UL student body have suffered very bad press this week in the local media (I'm not denying that UL students have also done great work in raising lots of money for charity - they have, but papers tend to focus on anti-social behaviour in the housing estates, nothing new there...) but I think this interview would have been a chance to offer ULSU's position on the events of the week to an audience who would probably have only been hearing about the bad news stories all week.

sceptre

To be slightly fair on the bad press received, all of the local pseudo-journalists and half of the competent ones are hovering and waiting for any opportunity to talk about broken bottles and overturned bins in the Castletroy area this week.

Personally I wouldn't have hung up, though I would have made quite an issue of anyone claiming that SU reps had "gone to ground", merely because they're not gagging to get on the early morning shows to talk to the guy who wants them on in the next twenty minutes before he unleashes the "gone to ground" line.

Contrast the UL Rag week with the videos you've probably all seen from Galway and Waterford and there's rather insignificant news to be working on in Limerick city or the suburbs this week. Damned inconvenient, of course, if your bin is overturned but in city-land we learned long ago not to leave our bins out overnight as the few yobbos regard them as an invitation to self-thrill, and Castletroy is effectively part of the city now.

There's no guarantee, obviously, that any texts read out purporting to be from UL students are actually from UL students. Even someone who's just clawed their way out of the dark mud would realise that it's a handy attempt at negative PR to send in a text pretending that you are. They may well be, but they may not be.

But, hey, I'm a, well, cynic is probably too strong. How about "person who is capable of questioning the way things are presented when they're packaged with a conveniently nice ribbon on top". Controversial radio is good radio, at least from a future ratings point of view. And while I'm never particularly a fan of pandering to an audience (the result being that any potential audience I'd have would be small, largely also made up of [people] who [are] capable of questioning the way things are presented when they're packaged with a conveniently nice ribbon on top") talk radio people do that. Their bosses tell them to. Plenty of local newspapers are terribly prone to doing the same.

So, while I wouldn't say that Limerick people and Castletroy people are lucky, compared with recent events in Galway and Waterford, they're comparatively lucky. Plenty of room for improvement of course - there always is. But "comparatively lucky" doesn't make headlines and it doesn't make a headline talkpoint on a show that remains on the radio in the morning because it can't keep its audience if it goes head to head with Joe Duffy.

Plenty of room for improvement. Not much point in saying that people have "gone to ground" though. People will probably just call you on it. And when they do, there's probably going to be self-righteous indignation flying around that could have been avoided if you weren't silly in the first place.

I still wouldn't have dumped the phone call. But I can totally understand the notion of "if you're going to play silly beggars and making stuff up, I've better things to be doing". Because let's be honest, there are better things to be doing.

brucechan

He shouldn't have hung up, that's the easy thing to do. By doing so he hid from further questioning, playing right into the "gone to ground" theme.
You can't sing and dance about all the good stuff that some students (and the SU) do throughout a year, but not take accountability for those you represent.

The Limerick Leader reported that "some" 12k was raised last year. That's about €1 per student! Now calculate the social cost to the local estates.

RAG week, Kollege Week, Charity Week, tart it up as you like, its Destruction Week, and does nothing to enhance the area or UL.

The SU and Derek Daly should just admit that the entire project is a failure. An official apology to the Residents and UL authority would be appropriate also but I doubt that will happen.

J_E

brucechan wrote:

The SU and Derek Daly should just admit that the entire project is a failure. An official apology to the Residents and UL authority would be appropriate also but I doubt that will happen.

Do you really think the week was a failure? The levels of antisocial behavior were low compared to last year, and its clear that a huge amount of money was raised. A great week was enjoyed by many. I'd use a more careful choice of words there. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if they had just scrapped it altogether (Galway)?

OhMSGlive

Cydoniac wrote: »

Imagine the chaos that would ensue if they had just scrapped it altogether (Galway)?

This.

And this as well if you need further convincing.....

johnryano

Listen, charity week is a ruse for a 5 day bender for the hardcore and not so hardcore ul drinkers.

the amount of money raised is negligible, you may think raising 5k for charity is a lot of money. it isn't. it's pittance.

Daly said that if they took rag week away completely there would be more uncontrolled events happening off campus. I think this assumption is worth challenging. There is no reason to suggest UL would do what Galway did, no reason at all.

If we get rid of charity / rag / antisocial week the present year 2nd and 3rd years might miss it. But the life span of a typical college student is about 4 years, in a few years time every one will have forgotten about this sordid little event and there would be no local residents terrorised for a week.

Cossax

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Fair play to Derek. Have to say I laughed when Nash was like "Well, there are other issues I have to deal with", would have been class if Daly just said "Yeah, well the current issue I'm dealing with currently is trying to facilitate the raising of x,000EUR for charity. *hangs up*" :pac:


Although, even though I think he was right to do it, it probably won't help the general attitude among residents over Charity Week...

That is a fantastic lie though, have you read the front page of the most recent paper version of An Focal? Daly admitted they got offered considerably more money than had been raised for charity in the last 2 years combined to not hold Rag week this year and they turned it down.

brucechan

Hi Cydoniac; Yes I do think it was and has been a failure for the few years that I ve seen it anyway, and I wouldn't change my choice of words. I agree with you that banning it altogether might mean more damage, but it certainly shouldnt continue in its current format. I can assure you that residents, especially the elderly or those with kids, are not among the "many" who enjoyed it; just talk to my neighbours in Dun an Oir. Its not fair on UL students who genuinely just want a few pints and a bit of craic, or on those residents. College Court for example, is a disaster zone, and I wouldnt like to be a resident paying a mortgage there. Daly, in my opinion, has been a weak President and tended to hide from criticism rather than face it constructively. Tactically, I believe he got things wrong (in relation to Charity Week) and stuck his head in the sand for the few days. A walk around College Court doesn't really cut it, sure some of the locals were doing that! I'm sure he's probably a decent guy but I think he has demonstrated that he is not suited to positions of leadership.

RAG weeks (or "Charity") are part of the student experience and should be something to be enjoyed. But unfortunately that's not the case and it does more harm than good.

Another thing is the reaction of the Erasmus / overseas students to the drinking culture here. Some of the Asian students in particular that I know are appalled at their Irish colleagues. Hardly the image we want to be portraying!

Agent_99

I am going to complain to the University/ULSU about all the "Locals" who come on the the campus and let their dogs S**T everywhere and don't clean it up!! everyday you have to walk past this disgusting sight and "locals" that look down their nose at you as if I have no right to be on their strolling path with their pooches,
Not every local does it you say! Well not every student tips up bins and leaves broken bottles around the place.
It's the poor low level gutterpress local and national journalists that give it such a bad rap Why were they not there to cover the fundraising events Shave or Dye/nearly naked mile etc..and a fun and worthwhile week of events in these times we should be able to let the hair down and have a bit of craic. Jezz the majority of the student population are young people enjoying life and making new friends there is time enough for them to grown up and have all the responsibility that comes with holding down and job and raising a family. I am a full time student at UL and if I were 20 years younger I would have been in the Que for tickets. I even got invited to a couple of house parties

Lighten up people !! Roll on next year and I might even join in instead of looking on with jealousy from the sidelines.

freyners

one thing ive learned from rag weeks is that there are enough ****ty journalists with the self respect of a drunk looking for a freebie, with the journalistic talent and merit of 4 year old with crayons who, completely ignoring the fact that where the same once, make up sensationalist posts in the hope that someone, somewhere will mistake it for talent so they can take the easy way out of their job in the 'lets make a sensation out of nothing' daily, instead of actually displaying the qualities of a proper journalist

daly should have done the interview, even if its on a radio show that is a poor imitation of a show that is radio equivalent of the above papers

by the way whats this petition all about?

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-to-boycott-the-sun-newspaper-on/


i would now like to apologise for any artistic 4 year olds I may have offended

Jester252

Skyrim wrote: »

You forgot the bit where some people seemed to be appalled at the sheep at the stables tuesday night.

Yes because there has been no bad history with live animals, pubs\clubs with loud music and a bunch of drunken fools.

wnolan1992

As sceptre said earlier, compared to Galway and Waterford, we were comparatively lucky. I'll admit, I didn't partake in much of Charity Week this year (project and assignment deadlines crept up in the long grass...), but any time I had the opportunity to walk around campus, there always seemed to be a nice relaxed atmosphere, with people just having a few beers and a laugh, and enjoying the entertainment.

Granted, the noise of people shouting at all hours of the morning was irritating, but I can honestly say I had more trouble getting sleep during Study week last semester than I did this week (caveat: I live in Dromroe so that's not exactly the same as College Court I know, just my experience).

Sure, you could ban it. But then (in my opinion) you'd end up with far more trouble on your hands.

a) The people who caused trouble this year, would no doubt get the mentality that they're "mad fúckers", who were the cause of getting Charity Week cancelled for everyone, and then would most likely try and out do their self-set standard of idiocy next year.

b) Those that caused no trouble would feel aggrieved. Next year, instead of having a few pints in the Stables/Javas, they'd drink at home because there'd be nothing luring them on campus in the evening. There'd be an upsurge in house parties, where people will continue drinking long after they'd have been cut off at a bar, and end up causing more trouble.

c) The night time events on campus, for example this year's ULFest, kept hundreds of students on campus until closing time.[1] Without such events, you'd have these students heading into the clubs in town. See a) and b) for the results.

All of this without raising a cent for Charity.

johnryano made the point that the RAG Week mentality would only last for another 2-3 years. I think this is a flawed point of view. Mainly because incoming first years in September would see people in the 3 years above them (and post grads) holding an un-official RAG Week, and will want to take part in it. Thus prolonging it.

brucechan, I live with 3 American Study Abroad students, and them and all their friends thoroughly enjoyed the week. They did find it odd that something such as Charity Week was SU organised, but other than that they just enjoyed taking part like everyone else.

Obviously this analysis doesn't take into account the hassle caused to non-student residents of the area. But then it is only one week a year. Imagine the reaction you'd get in America if you cancelled Spring Break?[2]



[1] - Making an assumption here. My ticket stub said 0590 on it, so I assume at least that number of tickets were sold, and that a large proportion of those would have stayed until the end.

[2] - A poor comparison maybe, but I'd consider the two things similar in that they're both ingrained in the student psyche, and they both have a reputation for their links to alcohol.

Jester252

Would the student who are leaving campus events not go back and have house partys or even before. The amount raised last year was less then €1 per student. It is hard to justify keeping it to other on the outside. I like the feel on campus during the week but I wonder why are event like these not spread out during the year. A lot of people have project deadlines or tests during rag week. Granted now a lot of the issues that are caused occur during year and people just use it as a platform to air their views. Also regradless of how much money the guy who did the nearly naked mile with a party hat over his junk doing that and posting picture online are not helping (see the sun) legal action lol.

Jester252

Skyrim wrote: »

Jester252 wrote: »

Yes because there has been no bad history with live animals, pubs\clubs with loud music and a bunch of drunken fools.

Thanks for backing me up.

Surprised animal cruelty has not been call yet

seen2Bgreen

And then Agent_99, if they try to raise a family in an estate near UL they'll appreciate the stupidity of the whole thing.

And its not the media that give the bad rap, its the students.

johnryano

hold on? were there real sheep there? I thought you were talking about an inflatable one?

Jester252

johnryano wrote: »

hold on? were there real sheep there? I thought you were talking about an inflatable one?

From the ULSU ENTS page
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=381338285229079&set=a.381338238562417.102461.183618918334351&type=1&ref=nf

johnryano

That's shocking. they could hardly have enjoyed the loud music and people pestering them. that's genuinely sickening. Who is in charge of booking this? the ents guy who got a ginger strip dyed onto his head? going to have serious words with him and who ever allowed those animals to be 'rented' out like this. blood disgrace.

Nobby13

Does anyone else think that this isn't the way the university should be represented? The issue at hand is that the president has not represented us on a radio show. The Presidents job is to represent us. The president needs to grow up and not worry about a petty issue, when larger issues are at hand, take the higher road and represent the students because that was disgraceful.

joey12

I'm with nobby on this one, Derek is elected to defend and represent us, he was brought on that show to do that very thing,I fail to see what he was trying to achieve by the way he conducted himself. As a student I'm very disappointed in the way he conducted himself and in my view has only added to the bad image that is put out there at the moment

Also going back on a few posts there about owners of dog not cleaning up after them, this has been something that has annoyed for sometime now. Its disgusting how bad the living bridge can get... one of the maintenance guys hits the bridge every morning with his shovel at 9am to clean up after these dogs.

sceptre

Skyrim wrote: »

You forgot the bit where some people seemed to be appalled at the sheep at the stables tuesday night.

The sort of idiot who brings live sheep into a bar, especially a crowded campus bar during Rag week, is the sort of person who should either wise up (and quickly) or should never breed - the world doesn't need that sort of stupidity carried into another generation. It's as dumb as those "hilarious" plonkers in Dublin who decided to bring a penguin with them on a night out.

SarahBeep!

Just listened to the interview....I would have hung up too.

johnryano

That's why you'd never be elected and you don't deserve to be elected as SU president.

Would derek have done this in his first term as welfare officer in the SU? Would he have had the neck to hang up on a relatively big local radio station? Not at all.

Derek was busy. The radio tried ringing him. They didn't get through. He rang back but didn't get through. The radio producer said he was 'gone to ground'. Derek denied the implication he was hiding rather proclaimed he just had been busy and not contacted at the right time. Derek very brazenly and stubbornly demanded the radio retract and apologise for their relatively fair declaration. They were in the right not to - derek couldn't categorically prove he wasn't putting the radio on the long finger. Derek's demeanour and attitude on the phone indicated he was too important for it too. Summary - they were entitled to say. what they said. Was he entitled to hang up? Derek daly FFer was but Derek Daly SU Pres wasn't.

I don't see how anyone can see this any other way.

SarahBeep!

johnryano wrote: »

That's why you'd never be elected and you don't deserve to be elected as SU president.

Awh damn, there goes my plan for next year!!

johnryano

good

OhMSGlive

Anybody have any recordings of the Clare FM broadcast?

colon

Is poor Derek falling asunder? Methinks he has spent too long wrapped in his little su cocoon, and now all we have left is this smug, self important, petulant mouth-piece. The way he chooses to carry himself within the university is one thing, but the president of the union going onto the airwaves acting like a spoilt child over a perceived slight only succeeds to undermine himself and his position even more. cringe radio.

canned_ulkc

johnryano wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can see this any other way.

I can....

johnryano wrote: »

That's why you'd never be elected and you don't deserve to be elected as SU president.

Wow, so what you're saying is that hanging up on an interviewer who basically makes the suggestion that you are too afraid to come on air and that you are actively avoiding it is a hangable offence now?

johnryano wrote: »

Would derek have done this in his first term as welfare officer in the SU? Would he have had the neck to hang up on a relatively big local radio station? Not at all.

Not in any way relevant. He is the SU President to which he was democratically elected.

johnryano wrote: »

Derek was busy. The radio tried ringing him. They didn't get through. He rang back but didn't get through. The radio producer said he was 'gone to ground'. Derek denied the implication he was hiding rather proclaimed he just had been busy and not contacted at the right time. Derek very brazenly and stubbornly demanded the radio retract and apologise for their relatively fair declaration. They were in the right not to - derek couldn't categorically prove he wasn't putting the radio on the long finger. Derek's demeanour and attitude on the phone indicated he was too important for it too. Summary - they were entitled to say. what they said. Was he entitled to hang up? Derek daly FFer was but Derek Daly SU Pres wasn't.

I don't get how it is "brazen" to demand an apology when someone has very publicly painted you as a chickensh*t. It is NOT a fair declaration. It might be fair to wonder but NOT fair to declare it as fact.

Derek was not in the position where he had to prove anything! THEY made the statement, the burden of proof was not on him.

It amazes me that people take such a 2 dimensional view of these things. Personally I wouldn't hang up but I'm willing to look at it as Derek having the integrity to respect the office of SU president rather than just attacking him.

johnryano

If you don't understand this issue the way i have presented it tony I have no faith in your ability to conduct yourself appropriately as education/welfare/president. I can assure you i will not be voting for you under any circumstances.

canned_ulkc

I can understand your viewpoint on that issue. I just can't understand why it is people insist on viewing things from just one angle.

Yes, Derek is our representitive. No I don't agree that he should have hung up but I can understand why it is that he would. Personally, I don't feel underrepresented by my SU President because he felt insulted by a comment which pretty much summed up the mood of the interviewer in terms of obviously being ready to go on the attack.

WRT your democratic right to vote for who you want; that's completely your decision. Though why you would base that decision on a single point of disagreement I don't know.

johnryano

OK, fair enough, at least you have the competence to understand both rationales. I can understand Derek's behaviour too, I just don't think it's justified. I think he should apologise for his comments.

If he was willing to go on radio and demand an apology for somebody misrepresenting him am i not entitled to demand an apology here for daly misrepesenting me?

wnolan1992

Just to say, to the best of my knowledge, Derek will be on ULFM today between 1:15-2:00. Will definitely be putting some of the concerns raised here to him. [/shameless_plug]

Jester252

Will he fill the time :pac:

Nockz

To me, I find the decision to hang up as silly because of this:

1) They say he won't go on the show to talk about the issues.

2) He goes on the show and demands an apology.

Now, this can go two ways. He can stay on the line, forget about an apology and stick to the real issue OR he can demand an apology from some radio host and hang up when none is given.

Doing the latter, he has only served to hold true to what the initial accusations were! The radio were spot on in what they said. Derek Daly would not talk about the issue on the air and that is exactly what has transpired.

Had he even discussed the issues briefly, he would have negated any accustions the radio show had and made them look at fault. He handles the ClareFM show so well and it was really disappointing to know that the significant portion of 95fm listeners came away with a sour taste of the ULSU and it's students.

johnryano

got a taxi into down last night and the driver was telling me all about derek's performance. he wasn't too impressed.

Nockz

johnryano wrote: »

got a taxi into down last night and the driver was telling me all about taxi's performance. he wasn't too impressed.

I lol'd

wnolan1992

Live now -> www.ulfm.ie