Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

meeeeh

Most radio stations are commercial operators. They don't need to stand for anything and can pull whatever music they want. I don't get the outrage about that, people have as much right not to play something as they have the right to play it. Unless you want to make a stand it would be stupid to bring all the hassle on yourself by playing his music. At least until all the fuss around the documentary settles down.

Sleeper12

sydthebeat wrote: »

Jackson had insurance against being outed as a pedophile??

Jackson was cleared of all charges in a court of law. He died an innocent man in the eyes of the law

meeeeh wrote: »

Most radio stations are commercial operators. They don't need to stand for anything and can pull whatever music they want. I don't get the outrage about that, people have as much right not to play something as they have the right to play it. Unless you want to make a stand it would be stupid to bring all the hassle on yourself by playing his music. At least until all the fuss around the documentary settles down.

I've no problem with them pulling his music. It's publicly stating that they are doing this is what's wrong. They are pandering to the pertinently offended. Standards & respect for the law get knocked each time something like this happens

sydthebeat

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He died an innocent man in the eyes of the law

So did Jimmy saville

You didn't answer my question though.

Did Jackson have insurance against being outed as a pedophile??? Because that's how it looks..... As you claim, his insurance paid out rather than going ahead with the cival case..... Ergo.....

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Jackson was cleared of all charges in a court of law. He died an innocent man in the eyes of the law

I've no problem with them pulling his music. It's publicly stating that they are doing this is what's wrong. They are pandering to the pertinently offended. Standards & respect for the law get knocked each time something like this happens

I don't think it's just pertinently offended. Most people are disgusted by pedophilia and the reaction to those allegations is often very strong.

As for being cleared of all charges in the eyes of the law, law can be wrong (Guildford Four is an example of wrong conviction). I'm not saying Jackson should be convicted, I didn't even follow the trials but people have the right to form their own opinions and disagree with the judgement. They might be wrong but sexual crimes are notoriously hard to prove. You can't force people not to feel uncomfortable listening to his music.

Sleeper12

sydthebeat wrote:

Did Jackson have insurance against being outed as a pedophile??? Because that's how it looks..... As you claim, his insurance paid out rather than going ahead with the cival case..... Ergo.....

Like most celebrities he has massive insurance against civil actions. There is no insurance for being a paedophile but then he wasn't one legally then nor at the time of his death.

The allegations were just that. He wasn't convinced of any crime. The family wouldn't give evidence in a criminal court case. What grounds do you suppose an insurance company can refuse to honour the policy of an innocent man?


It seems not really the thread for this stuff. If you want to go to pm I'll answer any q you want

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

I don't think it's just pertinently offended. Most people are disgusted by pedophilia and the reaction to those allegations is often very strong.

But this is only option not legal fact. Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land.

We have a big case possibly soon. A famous Dublin sports star in a hotel. Not the first time he's been accused too. If you or I called him a rapist now or after a positive acquittal we'd be banned from here and possibly sued. This is the law of the land.

I find it distasteful that this changes when a man dies.

FF politician died in Russia. Newspapers here stated that his female Russian translator was a prostitute. The distress this caused his family was terrible. The only person entitled to compensation from the paper was the Russian woman. She didn't even know about the article. The family who suffered the most distress didn't get a penny because you can't slander a dead man


Again I say nothing wrong with not playing his music. It's the fact that they are announcing that they won't play the music that's pandering to the permanently offended. Why announce it?

Sleeper12

sydthebeat wrote:

So did Jimmy saville

Just saw this. Saville wasn't totally cleared in a court of law. Saville never faced charges.

Two totally different situations

sydthebeat

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Just saw this. Saville wasn't totally cleared in a court of law. Saville never faced charges.

Two totally different situations

nope... both died innocent men in the eyes of the law... which is exactly what i quoted from you.

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Just saw this. Saville wasn't totally cleared in a court of law. Saville never faced charges.

Two totally different situations

Jackson never faced charges for the abuse of two men that came forward now and changed their stories. He was never totally cleared of those allegations (weather they are true or not).

This is the "Lunchtime with Ciara Kelly" thread. I'd imagine there are countless other threads on Michael Jacksons right now.
Please don't let this become pages and pages of derailment.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

Jackson never faced charges for the abuse of two men that came forward now and changed their stories. He was never totally cleared of those allegations (weather they are true or not).

You are correct. The two men in question swore under oath that he never touched them. They were adults when they did this. One continued to be part of the Jackson circle till after Jackson Death. The two men tried to sue the Jackson estate for a billion dollars no less. This was thrown out of court so they then sold their story to HBO.

Sleeper12

Moving on.

Different program. Pat Kenny has his finger on the pulse for sure. Today his Friday panel will be female only to celebrate national women's day.

goochy

kate o connell and - collette browne -feminazis

Sleeper12

Loved the first segment of the show today. It ran close to 30 minutes. That's long for the Friday show. I loved how the female representing the bookies refused to see the comparison between bookies and drug dealers. Drug dealers bad. Bookies good. If only the world was so simple

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Loved the first segment of the show today. It ran close to 30 minutes. That's long for the Friday show. I loved how the female representing the bookies refused to see the comparison between bookies and drug dealers. Drug dealers bad. Bookies good. If only the world was so simple

Some very strong texts in and calls countering the position of the bookies.
It really is a dangerous affliction for anyone inclined to get caught in the trap. It's just so easy to access gambling and appear to be staying away from it.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

Some very strong texts in and calls countering the position of the bookies. It really is a dangerous affliction for anyone inclined to get caught in the trap. It's just so easy to access gambling and appear to be staying away from it.

I don't gamble & I don't have a an issue with bookies but gambling can destroy lives. The guest on the show was trying to make out that with the safe guards in place everything is rosy. A recovering gambler made a great point that with online gambling you get an email after a few weeks of inactivity inviting you back & sometimes these emails will have a free €5 bet to entice you back. Not unlike a drug dealer offering you a free sample.

Joe_ Public

I’d have some sympathy with the criticism of bookmakers, there is definitely something very suspect and likely immoral in the way they seek to exclude winning punters while happily profiting on the vulnerable lower down the food chain.

However you can make these points without straying into the melodramatic. They are not drug dealers, that’s just ridiculous hyperbole and probably defamatory as well. If you don’t want online offers or enticement there is the obvious solution of self-exclusion or,even, closing the account. At end of day self restraint does have to come into it somewhere. I’m not really up on the modern drug scene, but I’m pretty sure dealers don’t offer these services as a matter of course.

Sleeper12

Joe_ Public wrote:

However you can make these points without straying into the melodramatic. They are not drug dealers, that’s just ridiculous hyperbole and probably defamatory as well. If you don’t want online offers or enticement there is the obvious solution of self-exclusion or,even, closing the account. At end of day self restraint does have to come into it somewhere. I’m not really up on the modern drug scene, but I’m pretty sure dealers don’t offer these services as a matter of course.

I don't think anyone said that they were drug dealers. They don't sell drugs so obviously they aren't drug dealers. However the two industries are similar in that they make vast sums of money of the back of misery.

Tonight in Dublin 10s of thousands of people will be taking drugs and for the vast majority of these it's a weekend social thing. They have a handle on it and it rarely effects their lives. Gamblers are the same. But when you compare the problem drug users & the problem gamblers you see similarities.

Many practices by the bookies should be stopped. For example trying to entice gamblers back by sending emails. Also I know that it's illegal already but there are still many small bookies running tabs for customers. These bookies should be sent to jail when caught

limnam

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't think anyone said that they were drug dealers. They don't sell drugs so obviously they aren't drug dealers. However the two industries are similar in that they make vast sums of money of the back of misery.

Tonight in Dublin 10s of thousands of people will be taking drugs and for the vast majority of these it's a weekend social thing. They have a handle on it and it rarely effects their lives. Gamblers are the same. But when you compare the problem drug users & the problem gamblers you see similarities.

Many practices by the bookies should be stopped. For example trying to entice gamblers back by sending emails. Also I know that it's illegal already but there are still many small bookies running tabs for customers. These bookies should be sent to jail when caught

With GPDR I would have thought it's fairly easy to unsubscribe from these emails especially for the larger bookies

Sleeper12

limnam wrote:

With GPDR I would have thought it's fairly easy to unsubscribe from these emails especially for the larger bookies

The problem is that you are asking addicts to unsubscribe themselves. Wouldn't it be better not to push the product in the first place?

limnam

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The problem is that you are asking addicts to unsubscribe themselves. Wouldn't it be better not to push the product in the first place?

I thought the problem with the mail was people who have given up getting emails to come back. if you're giving up unsubscribe....


It's like giving out about Amazon sending out sales alerts etc in case someone who got the mail is a recovering shopaholic which also ruins a lot of families.


Being an addict doesn't resolve you of personal account ability



That addict more than likely has to walk by / drive by any amount of betting shops in the streets, adverts on the tele etc.


We can't keep shaping things for the minority who can't control themselves. Might be better putting the effort into giving the people with the problem the right help and tools to cope instead of all the guard rails

Joe_ Public

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I don't think anyone said that they were drug dealers. They don't sell drugs so obviously they aren't drug dealers. However the two industries are similar in that they make vast sums of money of the back of misery.

Tonight in Dublin 10s of thousands of people will be taking drugs and for the vast majority of these it's a weekend social thing. They have a handle on it and it rarely effects their lives. Gamblers are the same. But when you compare the problem drug users & the problem gamblers you see similarities.

Many practices by the bookies should be stopped. For example trying to entice gamblers back by sending emails. Also I know that it's illegal already but there are still many small bookies running tabs for customers. These bookies should be sent to jail when caught

Ah well, we might as well take a big leap down the well of semantic parsing absurdity. Why don’t you throw the drinks industry in there while you’re at it? They trade in misery too, don’t they? All addictions are unfortunate and share many common traits. I personally despise the major conglomerate bookies myself (we know who they are) but don’t see the need to equate them with drug dealers (no, they aren’t actually drug dealers per se). It’s just unnecessary and ott. I have no issue with a bookies rep defending the industry on that basis.

We are lucky in this country that we have more legislative checks on gambling than in the uk where there are some truly frightening stories about addiction (check out fobts if interested). I think more can be done about spreading awareness, putting better online safeguards and limits in place and in the area of sponsorship and bookie offers.

However, in a lot of cases we just have to question people and their self restraint. As poster alludes to above, if a recovering gambler is still getting emails from bookies then he/she has got to take a hard look at themself. Does a recovering alcoholic take a walk around the drinks section of their local supermarket to have a look at what they’re missing?

Sleeper12

I'm not anti gambling. I'm just agreeing with yesterday's show that there are similarities between drug dealing and bookie practices.

It's easy just to look at the punters who can take it or leave it.

Drug dealers will give a free sample to entice an addict back and so do bookies. Simular doesn't mean that they are the same.

In the 30 minute slot yesterday I don't recall a single caller agreeing with the bookie spokesperson. That's not to say that all the callers were anti gambling

Joe_ Public

Not going to get bogged down on this, can agree to disagree. Don’t have any inside track on how dealers work vis a vis seeking out recovering addicts to offer free samples as enticement so can’t really see the comparison.

My response to that caller, while sympathetic, would be partly to ask why, if he’s truly serious about his problem, he still obviously has an online account. Close the damn thing and no more tempting emails. Not going to say it’s easy, but that’s just a very basic initial step.

Sleeper12

Joe_ Public wrote:

My response to that caller, while sympathetic, would be partly to ask why, if he’s truly serious about his problem, he still obviously has an online account. Close the damn thing and no more tempting emails. Not going to say it’s easy, but that’s just a very basic initial step.

It's not just him. The email is to entice everyone to gamble more. In the next few years practices like this will be illegal. Most likely all advertising & sponsorship will be banned not unlike alcohol and cigarettes.

sydthebeat

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's not just him. The email is to entice everyone to gamble more. In the next few years practices like this will be illegal. Most likely all advertising & sponsorship will be banned not unlike alcohol and cigarettes.

Company advertises to increase sales shocker ......

Gambling is as much and self control as any other addiction. Advertising deals happens in every business. If people can't control themselves then that's their problem. If people over buy on the shipping channel, their fault. If people over eat after seeing 'just eat' ads.... Again their fault.... Over drinking cos they buy a slab of beer, or a litre of vodka .. their fault.

Same with gambling, if you can't control your addiction, seek help... But first... Delete your account.

Sleeper12

sydthebeat wrote:

Company advertises to increase sales shocker ......

This will be illegal soon in the same way as drink & cigarettes. The ban is on the advertising & sponsorship is to help protect the young & more vulnerable. Not every adult has great willpower.

limnam

Sleeper12 wrote: »

This will be illegal soon in the same way as drink & cigarettes. The ban is on the advertising & sponsorship is to help protect the young & more vulnerable. Not every adult has great willpower.

Ilegal to send an email?


Half my inbox is mail from off licenses. :pac:

meeeeh

There was an email in from someone whose 18 year old was addicted to gambling and parents were desperate not knowing what to do.

I don't get gambling, I don't even do lotto, it has absolutely no attraction to me. But it would be stupid to ignore the fact that gambling changed hugely since ot went online. It's so nice pontificating about self restraint but tell that to mother who had no money to take child to doctor because husband gambled away his very good wages the moment he got them. Who wants to give a lecture on self restraint to family members who have to live with the consequences.

Almost the only ads shown during sporting events are for gambling. Newspapers report the ods, radio shows discuss them and it's the easiest addiction to service. You don't even need to get out of bed to place a bet.

limnam

meeeeh wrote: »

There was an email in from someone whose 18 year old was addicted to gambling and parents were desperate not knowing what to do.

I don't get gambling, I don't even do lotto, it has absolutely no attraction to me. But it would be stupid to ignore the fact that gambling changed hugely since ot went online. It's so nice pontificating about self restraint but tell that to mother who had no money to take child to doctor because husband gambled away his very good wages the moment he got them. Who wants to give a lecture on self restraint to family members who have to live with the consequences.

Almost the only ads shown during sporting events are for gambling. Newspapers report the ods, radio shows discuss them and it's the easiest addiction to service. You don't even need to get out of bed to place a bet.

What do you suggest as a solution to stop people getting addicted to anything that can harm them in anyway?