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

Sleeper12

kunst nugget wrote:

The apology specifically starts with 'Newstalk and Ciara Kelly'. So both the station and her as a separate entity to the station are apologising.

If it were me that she slandered I'd be looking for an online apology from her where she admits that she was wrong and I had nothing to do with her father death.

That's nothing to do with the quality of her job as a broadcaster or sponsorship or anything like that. I'm just suggesting that she may still be sued. It's totally different to the George thing. This one is between her and the other doctor and has nothing to do with quality of her work

i71jskz5xu42pb

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If it were me that she slandered

This got me thinking, off topic I know, but would it be slander or libel? Apparently, legally, it's all just defamation since 2009. But as radio is not a transient medium (recording, playback, etc) it'd be considered libel not slander. One to amaze your friends with at parties

Defamation has traditionally been divided into two forms: libel and slander. Historically, libel was the written form of defamation, while slander was the spoken form. The advent of modern technology has made those definitions obsolete. Even though broadcasting is, in one way, a more transient medium than newspapers, the invention of tape and video recorders and the internet means that a false statement can now be preserved in the same way as a newspaper cutting. So today, a defamatory statement broadcast on radio or television or the internet would be regarded as libellous, rather than slanderous. The 2009 act abolishes the separate torts of libel and slander and replaces them with the “tort of defamation”.

https://www.lawyer.ie/defamation/

Conservative

The only reasoning I can find for this show is it attracts some lucrative healthcare/pharmaceutical ads?

How can I encourage my baby to come out for international women's day? FFS..

Andrea Gilligan far more deserving of this slot

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Get over the whole Hook thing. No sponsors will leave Newstalk because C. Kelly made a comment. The other gp could sue but then his name will be out and people will actually wonder why another doctor would think he messed up her father's treatment. The whole hysteria around Ciara Kelly is laughable at this stage.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

It's not a thing of listeners or sponsorship leaving the station.

The station apologised. She hasn't. I don't bash Ciara Kelly. Sometimes I like her sometimes I don't. My comments have nothing to do with Newstalk or her as a broadcaster.

I'm purely suggesting that it may not be over for her. She may well be sued. A doctor on public Airways suggests that another doctor may be responsible for her fathers death. This is a very serious statement.

Just on the above......

Not all doctors are equal in training.

The short explanation - GPs are at the bottom of the ranking. They are effectively a "Jack of All Trades, Master Of None". SHOs, SpRs, Consultants etc. are specialists in their area and undergo many years of further training to get to that level. GPs know a little about as lot of areas; a specialist knows an awful lot about a very small area of medicinal practice.

The doctor who treated her father would be far more qualified (academically and practically) in his/her specialist training area than any GP, including Kelly.

She (Kelly) would simply not be qualified to comment on the Specialist's treatment. She may have an opinion, but that's all it is - an opinion, not based in fact.


Finally, the reason both NT and Kelly would have to apologise is they would both be separately liable and therefore open to being sued on this.

ButtersSuki

Conservative wrote: »

The only reasoning I can find for this show is it attracts some lucrative healthcare/pharmaceutical ads?

How can I encourage my baby to come out for international women's day? FFS..

Andrea Gilligan far more deserving of this slot

I actually don't know if the comment in bold is a joke or a topic that's being covered on the show. Either is possible I guess! :pac:

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Just on the above......

Not all doctors are equal in training.

The short explanation - GPs are at the bottom of the ranking. They are effectively a "Jack of All Trades, Master Of None". SHOs, SpRs, Consultants etc. are specialists in their area and undergo many years of further training to get to that level. GPs know a little about as lot of areas; a specialist knows an awful lot about a very small area of medicinal practice.

The doctor who treated her father would be far more qualified (academically and practically) in his/her specialist training area than any GP, including Kelly.

I am very well aware about the difference between gp and specialist, we are not all complete morons. However I think you frequently use it to discredit Ciara Kelly, she is a gp which as far as I know requires quite a bit of training and hard work.

Anyway using your logic no lay person who sues HSE for mismanagement of treatment should complain because they have no specialist training. I stated that the lawsuit might be counterproductive for a professional because it would more damage to their reputation in the eyes of general public, it has nothing to do with what kind of medical training Ciara has in comparison to the specialist.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

I am very well aware about the difference between gp and specialist, we are not all complete morons. However I think you frequently use it to discredit Ciara Kelly, she is a gp which as far as I know requires quite a bit of training and hard work.

Anyway using your logic no lay person who sues HSE for mismanagement of treatment should complain because they have no specialist training. I stated that the lawsuit might be counterproductive for a professional because it would more damage to their reputation in the eyes of general public, it has nothing to do with what kind of medical training Ciara has in comparison to the specialist.

Way to misinterpret and take offence where none was intended. Well done! Well done! Never said you were a moron, or implied it.

Your reply is not remotely close to addressing what I said, and you know it.

If a layperson was to take a lawsuit against a specialist their legal team would hire another specialist to review the procedures and action taken etc. - not a GP.

Does a GP require training? Yes. I never said they didn't and to suggest so is completely disingenuous.
Does a specialist require more? Yes. That is a fact, not my opinion.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Way to misinterpret and take offence where none was intended. Well done! Well done! Never said you were a moron, or implied it.

Your reply is not remotely close to addressing what I said, and you know it.

If a layperson was to take a lawsuit against a specialist their legal team would hire another specialist to review the procedures and action taken etc. - not a GP.

Does a GP require training? Yes. I never said they didn't and to suggest so is completely disingenuous.
Does a specialist require more? Yes. That is a fact, not my opinion.

And how is that relevant?

Btw I know you didn't state I am a moron, but it really is explaining of some basic stuff and you keep on doing it. It's patronising to assume people don't know the difference between gp and specialist.

wnolan1992

meeeeh wrote: »

I am very well aware about the difference between gp and specialist, we are not all complete morons. However I think you frequently use it to discredit Ciara Kelly, she is a gp which as far as I know requires quite a bit of training and hard work.

Anyway using your logic no lay person who sues HSE for mismanagement of treatment should complain because they have no specialist training. I stated that the lawsuit might be counterproductive for a professional because it would more damage to their reputation in the eyes of general public, it has nothing to do with what kind of medical training Ciara has in comparison to the specialist.

Come on, that's not what he was getting at IMO. All he said was that Ciara Kelly is not qualified to question a specialist's opinion.

Which she isn't. That's not up for debate. Nor is it a slight against Ciara Kelly to say she's "only a GP".

She may well feel her father's case was mismanaged, maybe it was, but she is in no more a position to state it definitively than Mary down the road. If she feels her father's case was mismanaged, she is perfectly entitled to have it investigated the same as anyone else who feels their medical affairs were mismanaged, but she'd likely be laughed out of court if her entire case rests on her opinion as a GP against that of a specialist.

Grolschevik

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Come on, that's not what he was getting at IMO. All he said was that Ciara Kelly is not qualified to question a specialist's opinion.

Which she isn't. That's not up for debate. Nor is it a slight against Ciara Kelly to say she's "only a GP".

She may well feel her father's case was mismanaged, maybe it was, but she is in no more a position to state it definitively than Mary down the road. If she feels her father's case was mismanaged, she is perfectly entitled to have it investigated the same as anyone else who feels their medical affairs were mismanaged, but she'd likely be laughed out of court if her entire case rests on her opinion as a GP against that of a specialist.

That said, if I was a medical doctor looking for answers about the death of a loved one, I suspect I'd be in a better position to do research, ask questions, and talk to other specialist colleagues than Mary down the road is.

wnolan1992

Grolschevik wrote: »

That said, if I was a medical doctor looking for answers about the death of a loved one, I suspect I'd be in a better position to do research, ask questions, and talk to other specialist colleagues than Mary down the road is.

Fair point. But you should probably go do that research first and get it investigated properly to make sure your opinion based on better than average knowledge was actually correct before talking about it on your national radio show.

ButtersSuki

Originally Posted by meeeeh
Get over the whole Hook thing. No sponsors will leave Newstalk because C. Kelly made a comment. The other gp could sue but then his name will be out and people will actually wonder why another doctor would think he messed up her father's treatment. The whole hysteria around Ciara Kelly is laughable at this stage.

meeeeh wrote: »

And how is that relevant?

Btw I know you didn't state I am a moron, but it really is explaining of some basic stuff and you keep on doing it. It's patronising to assume people don't know the difference between gp and specialist.

With respect, you said "the other gp"; not specialist. It would not be a GP who would have treated her father in hospital. With that in mind I felt it relevant to clarify the difference.

Tell me how

ButtersSuki wrote:

Not all doctors are equal in training.

You seem to have a personal gripe against GP's which I find odd.

You referred to them as the lowest of the low before if I'm not mistaken.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Originally Posted by meeeeh
Get over the whole Hook thing. No sponsors will leave Newstalk because C. Kelly made a comment. The other gp could sue but then his name will be out and people will actually wonder why another doctor would think he messed up her father's treatment. The whole hysteria around Ciara Kelly is laughable at this stage.





With respect, you said "the other gp"; not specialist. It would not be a GP who would have treated her father in hospital. With that in mind I felt it relevant to clarify the difference.

Yeah I know you feel it's relevant to explain how she is at the bottom of the medical ladder every so often. In case we might forget.

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

You seem to have a personal gripe against GP's which I find odd.

You referred to them as the lowest of the low before if I'm not mistaken.

I have no grip against GPs at all.

If however you're going to quote me, at least use the full quote; but no, that wouldn't suit your narrative or agenda - you have deliberately I suspect left out the full sentence which gives context to what I said.

For the record what I said is highlighted in bold below:

ButtersSuki wrote: »

She used to introduce herself as "DOCTOR Ciara Kelly" all the time with major emphasis on the "DOCTOR". She's a GP - the lowest of the low in the doctor hierarchy. I worked in a very specialist field in pharma for a number of years and you should hear the things hospital consultants say about GPs. The highest level of medical consultant specialists don't refer to themselves or introduce themselves as "Dr." Its use as she used it suggested both a massive superiority and inferiority complex - situation dependent.

When she started her own show the "DOCTOR" was dropped. I posted on this at the time that I suspect she was encouraged/forced to drop it by Newstalk as she was coming across as very aloof. She comes across as an incredibly smug know it all. To paraphrase Ben Stiller in Dodgeball "I'm better than you, and I know it" could be her catchphrase such is her own lofty opinion of herself - at least this is how she comes across.

No matter what the topic she seems to know more about it than her guest, which begs the question as to why have any guests on at all.

Which is very different to what you implied.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah I know you feel it's relevant to explain how she is at the bottom of the medical ladder every so often. In case we might forget.

So now you're ignoring the fact that I pointed out how you referred to a specialist as a GP? Ok.

kunst nugget

I know you're all feeling very het up by this riveting argument you're having but Christ almighty, it's a boring read…

kunst nugget

Conservative wrote: »

How can I encourage my baby to come out for international women's day? FFS..

Tbf, I think the person asking the question was just trying to figure out the best way to expel the baby from her as quickly as possible - it was CK who said wouldn't it be great to have your baby on International Women's Day.

Grolschevik

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Fair point. But you should probably go do that research first and get it investigated properly to make sure your opinion based on better than average knowledge was actually correct before talking about it on your national radio show.

She may well have done, but Newstalk legal thought it best to go with the easy and prudent option when challenged.

I work with an organisation that's lawyered up to the hilt, and even they feel that it's more often the easier option to cave and apologise rather than risk the hassle and expense of defending a legal action. But i didn't hear the original piece, so she may have contextualised it differently.

anthonyjmaher

The apology may have either been after getting a phone call from the good doctor, OR it may have been pre-emptive on their own part with a view to persuading him not to take legal action. She made a hugely serious accusation against the man, so I would be surprised if he didn't take it further.

I think Newstalk may rue the day they put a person with no serious broadcasting experience - a loose tongue with not enough broadcasting common sense not to realise that when you make a specific reference to somebody in your private life, you are essentially naming them.

honeybear

Anyone see Ciara on The Restaurant-I’m not a fan but she did really well

anthonyjmaher

honeybear wrote: »

Anyone see Ciara on The Restaurant-I’m not a fan but she did really well

I heard her eating humble pie yesterday, was that anything to do with it?

anthonyjmaher

Stuck listening to this again today as somebody else has the radio on. "Well texter, women tennis players are NOT paid the same as male tennis players", says Ciara before being corrected by her guest.
She's either talking about women's rights or children playing with their phones/eating too much / studying etc etc. Maybe they should rename it to "The Woman And Children Show". 
Please doctor, sue her and take her off the air. I'd even take Jonathan Healy back at this stage!!!

quintana76

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Stuck listening to this again today as somebody else has the radio on. "Well texter, women tennis players are NOT paid the same as male tennis players", says Ciara before being corrected by her guest.
She's either talking about women's rights or children playing with their phones/eating too much / studying etc etc. Maybe they should rename it to "The Woman And Children Show". 
Please doctor, sue her and take her off the air. I'd even take Jonathan Healy back at this stage!!!

Don't forget her hectoring obsession with the evils of alcohol.

ButtersSuki

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Stuck listening to this again today as somebody else has the radio on. "Well texter, women tennis players are NOT paid the same as male tennis players", says Ciara before being corrected by her guest.
She's either talking about women's rights or children playing with their phones/eating too much / studying etc etc. Maybe they should rename it to "The Woman And Children Show".
Please doctor, sue her and take her off the air. I'd even take Jonathan Healy back at this stage!!!

Ciara Kelly not checking facts? Why should she when her opinion is fact.......in her own head. :rolleyes:

Tell me how

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Stuck listening to this again today as somebody else has the radio on. "Well texter, women tennis players are NOT paid the same as male tennis players", says Ciara before being corrected by her guest.
She's either talking about women's rights or children playing with their phones/eating too much / studying etc etc. Maybe they should rename it to "The Woman And Children Show".
Please doctor, sue her and take her off the air. I'd even take Jonathan Healy back at this stage!!!

There was an item on Friday last for 10 minutes on the clitoris and vagina.
Not really relevant to me but I'm not sure if there would be a similar piece on, say, the foreskin at that time of day.

As I listened to it, I thought it was nearly being done to challenge anyone who might say it was unsuitable.
I thought for a second Dil Wickremasinghe must have been sitting in.

Grolschevik

Tell me how wrote: »

There was an item on Friday last for 10 minutes on the clitoris and vagina.
Not really relevant to me but I'm not sure if there would be a similar piece on, say, the foreskin at that time of day.

As I listened to it, I thought it was nearly being done to challenge anyone who might say it was unsuitable.
I thought for a second Dil Wickremasinghe must have been sitting in.

Moncrieff had a very, eh, detailed section on circumcision there a while back. Very hard to cross your legs when you're driving...

bloodless_coup

In the car for 5 mins at lunch time and happened to catch some fella the show on about his male privilege and that we should allow a bit of discrimination against men to "balance things up" for women.

Ciara chims in and says that anyone who disagrees that men have an inherent privilege are just wrong.

What scutter!

Tell me how

Grolschevik wrote:

Moncrieff had a very, eh, detailed section on circumcision there a while back. Very hard to cross your legs when you're driving...

Agree. I'm not saying there's no place for sexual discussions for both genders.

I felt this was excessively forcing home the point that women's genitals were being discussed on the radio.

Sean, in fairness, discussed things because their interesting, not because he's trying to make a statement.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

There was an item on Friday last for 10 minutes on the clitoris and vagina. Not really relevant to me but I'm not sure if there would be a similar piece on, say, the foreskin at that time of day.

I was impressed by the fact that the clit is as big as a penis!