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

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

:rolleyes::pac:

Moncrieff is an entertainment show, not a news show btw - as I’m sure you’re fully aware of - and it wouldn’t have been discussed in such a show.

Then tell me which show will it be discussed in? It's a non story. Victim was found, suspect found, details won't be released. What is there to discuss? You can't even get a local TD or priest on because they probably don't know them.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

Then tell me which show will it be discussed in? It's a non story. Victim was found, suspect found, details won't be released. What is there to discuss?

You are right and wrong at the same time.

It's a huge story

No one will cover this in depth until after a conviction. The woman can change her mind & claim innocent. Any coverage can affect a possible jury verdict. All we should be hearing are basic facts right now. Once a conviction is secured everyone will cover it it great detail.

meeeeh

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are right and wrong at the same time.

It's a huge story

No one will cover this in depth until after a conviction. The woman can change her mind & claim innocent. Any coverage can affect a possible jury verdict. All we should be hearing are basic facts right now. Once a conviction is secured everyone will cover it it great detail.

Nobody here was talking about covering the story sometime in the future. It was the story last week and it will be again when the trial is on but today nobody will cover it because there is nothing to cover. BS expected Ciara to cover it today my reply was to that. I would really think that much was obvious.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

I missed Breakfast but I heard a good but of Moncrieff and Kenny, I haven't heard anything on that murder. Neither I expect Yates to cover it and yet Kelly should because bitter little men can't stand a woman who has an opinion.

I thought she had very good item on sexual abuse of children and adults today. Yes it was not stated at the end of every sentence 'men too' and 'not all men' so most here were probably triggered every 30 seconds but I found it very good.

this was a PC damage limitation "row back" on her shambles of a show previously about sexual harassment and " tell men to stop raping women" rants. She was totally out of control then and allowed her own prejudices to take precedence . She did this show today to redeem herself in some way and it was far more measured. But underneath it all there is a very strong anti male/women are victims rhetoric in her.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

this was a PC damage limitation "row back" on her shambles of a show previously about sexual harassment and " tell men to stop raping women" rants. She was totally out of control then and allowed her own prejudices to take precedence . She did this show today to redeem herself in some way and it was far more measured. But underneath it all there is a very strong anti male/women are victims rhetoric in her.

She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't it seems.

Heard her read out a series of texts today. Didn't mention Ciara at the start of one. Thought she did it everytime....

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Nobody here was talking about covering the story sometime in the future. It was the story last week and it will be again when the trial is on but today nobody will cover it because there is nothing to cover. BS expected Ciara to cover it today my reply was to that. I would really think that much was obvious.

It’s great that you can read my mind And know exactly what I’m thinking, isn’t it?

Obviously I don’t expect her or anyone else to cover the story in a way that would be prejudicial to the outcome of any successful prosecution; but there have been Male to Female violent incidents in the past that have been used as the opening to a conversation about Male to Female violence etc.

You’re incorrect in saying no-one has covered it, it has been in all the papers and has received lots of coverage on both radio and tv. It is perfectly fine to report on it as long as you don’t say anything prejudicial to the case - as you are very much aware of I’m sure. But no, no mention of it on “Ciara”.

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

She's damned if she does, damned if she doesn't it seems.

Heard her read out a series of texts today. Didn't mention Ciara at the start of one. Thought she did it everytime....

More like she’s defended to the hilt if she does by some on here; and, likewise, defended to the hilt by the same people when she doesn’t.

Oh to be as perfect as Ciara!

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

Then tell me which show will it be discussed in? It's a non story. Victim was found, suspect found, details won't be released. What is there to discuss? You can't even get a local TD or priest on because they probably don't know them.

Or are you saying it’s a non-story because the victim in this case is Male?

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

Nobody here was talking about covering the story sometime in the future. It was the story last week and it will be again when the trial is on but today nobody will cover it because there is nothing to cover. BS expected Ciara to cover it today my reply was to that. I would really think that much was obvious.

I wasn't having a pop at you.

You are 100 percent correct. It's not a story for any program, except for the news, until there is a conviction. It's not unlike the poor girl that was raped in Ringsend. Very little reported till the rapist was convicted then it was all over the radio.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Or are you saying it’s a non-story because the victim in this case is Male?

No because it's a non story today. What could be covered was covered last week. You demanded coverage today. I asked you who was covering it today because you wanted Ciara specifically to cover it. Don't try to tar me with your gender nonsense.

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

Heard her read out a series of texts today. Didn't mention Ciara at the start of one. Thought she did it everytime....

Are you saying it's not a thing? Perhaps she's rowed back on the frequency but are you seriously trying to say that it's not a thing (inserting her name into a text) that she does? Or that you haven't noticed this?

I heard the very start of the show (before frantically rushing to find the remote to turn off the radio) and it was "You can text Ciara on...."; not "you can text the show on...." or "you can text me on....".


I frequently text (and have my comments read out) on numerous Newstalk shows. I haven't ever sent a text to Pat Kenny starting with "Hi Pat....", Breakfast starting with "Hi Shane...." or Off The Ball starting with "Hi Ger....". It's not natural, and I simply don't believe that the majority of the texts she reads out wherein she names herself actually contain her name.

Or are you, a la "Ciara" (in her "I absolutely wouldn't mind if all the travellers of Ireland moved their caravans into my estate"), going to claim that you hadn't noticed and/or that you actually believe all these texters are texting in with "Hi Ciara!"/"Well said Ciara!"/"Exactly right Ciara!"/"Love the show Ciara!"/"I couldn't have put it better myself Ciara!"?

I can assure you she hasn't once read any of my texts. And I've gone out of my way to include her name. And no, before you jump to conclusion or make any assumptions I wasn't being a smart arse in any of them. Have I been critical of the show or a viewpoint she has expressed? Yes. Hence it doesn't get read out. Funny that. I've been far more critical of other Newstalk shows in texts to those shows and they have always at least read the texts out, but not on "Ciara".

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

No because it's a non story today. What could be covered was covered last week. You demanded coverage today. I asked you who was covering it today because you wanted Ciara specifically to cover it. Don't try to tar me with your gender nonsense.

In the future, dictionaries will use this post as the very definition of irony.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

No because it's a non story today. What could be covered was covered last week. You demanded coverage today. I asked you who was covering it today because you wanted Ciara specifically to cover it. Don't try to tar me with your gender nonsense.

Back to misquoting and trying to make out I said things I didn't actually say once again me I see?

I never demanded anything. I asked an assumptive question; namely stating I assumed she didn't cover (in any way) the story. And she didn't.

meeeeh

ButtersSuki wrote: »

In the future, dictionaries will use this post as the very definition of irony.

As usual when you have no reply you resort to cheap insults because you are never wrong (it might be the keypad on your phone but never you). As always I should know better than even reply to the nonsense.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

So when you have no reply you resort to cheap insults and insinuation. As always I should know better than even comment.

And again, the irony! I've lost count of the number of insults you have hurled at me since you started posting on this thread.

Rather than debate the point you are always the one to resort to insults first, which you did agin today. You implied I (and others) were "bitter little men" earlier today because I/we happen to disagree with "Ciara". Despite what you seem to think, I don't oppose any woman ("Ciara" included) having an opinion; but don't expect them not to be called out for those opinions when they are wrong, inconsistent, sexist/misandristic, seeking to cause controversy, or just "nonsense" (as in the case of her welcoming travellers to her estate). Just like I'd call out a male presenter btw, in the interests of equality.

Btw, how is saying your post is ironic an insult?

And again I see you fail to answer any question asked of you. Way to engage in a debate.

ButtersSuki

meeeeh wrote: »

As usual when you have no reply you resort to cheap insults because you are never wrong (it might be the keypad on your phone but never you). As always I should know better than even reply to the nonsense.

Sorry, where did I have "no reply". Unlike you I replied in detail and addressed numerous points raised by you and other posters. When asked a question . you don't like, your standard response is of the

"I'm not engaging with you any further"

variety. Ironic, again.

The Bishop Basher

Drifter50 wrote: »

Yes, I watched BOC ask that question and I really hoped for once in her life she could be honest but no she headed off down the " I don`t mind if travellers and their caravans move in beside me "

Yeah right, but Ciara don`t you live in leafy Greystones

Whatever vestige of respect I had, its gone now

Well given that Ciara took front and center stage in the battle to keep that evil empire McDonalds out of the town a couple of years ago I’m also calling bull**** on her claim that she’d be fine with a traveler encampment on her road.

Not a hope..

Besides that I also live in G’stones, not too far from Ciara and i’d be horrified if travelers were given a site anywhere near us.

I know it’s pure nimby’ism but I couldn’t give 2 fecks.

There’s no way Ciara would be ok with a bunch of travelers on her road.

In her quest to be so PC she’s ultimately just become a blatant liar.

Maybe the Happy Pear twins would give them a spot in behind and feed them free porridge every morning..

maxwell smart

Rennaws wrote: »

Well given that Ciara took front and center stage in the battle to keep that evil empire McDonalds out of the town a couple of years ago I’m also calling bull**** on her claim that she’d be fine with a traveler encampment on her road.

Not a hope..

Besides that I also live in G’stones, not too far from Ciara and i’d be horrified if travelers were given a site anywhere near us.

I know it’s pure nimby’ism but I couldn’t give 2 fecks.

There’s no way Ciara would be ok with a bunch of travelers on her road.

In her quest to be so PC she’s ultimately just become a blatant liar.

Maybe the Happy Pear twins would give them a spot in behind and feed them free porridge every morning..

That's a great line, bravo.

Would that be before or after they get them all out for a brisk early morning swim....:rolleyes::rolleyes::D:D

ButtersSuki

Rennaws wrote: »

Well given that Ciara took front and center stage in the battle to keep that evil empire McDonalds out of the town a couple of years ago I’m also calling bull**** on her claim that she’d be fine with a traveler encampment on her road.

Not a hope..

Besides that I also live in G’stones, not too far from Ciara and i’d be horrified if travelers were given a site anywhere near us.

I know it’s pure nimby’ism but I couldn’t give 2 fecks.

There’s no way Ciara would be ok with a bunch of travelers on her road.

In her quest to be so PC she’s ultimately just become a blatant liar.

Maybe the Happy Pear twins would give them a spot in behind and feed them free porridge every morning..

But...but....but....you're not allowed criticise "Ciara" on here!

Tell me how

Rennaws wrote: »

Well given that Ciara took front and center stage in the battle to keep that evil empire McDonalds out of the town a couple of years ago I’m also calling bull**** on her claim that she’d be fine with a traveler encampment on her road.

Not a hope..

Besides that I also live in G’stones, not too far from Ciara and i’d be horrified if travelers were given a site anywhere near us.

I know it’s pure nimby’ism but I couldn’t give 2 fecks.

There’s no way Ciara would be ok with a bunch of travelers on her road.

In her quest to be so PC she’s ultimately just become a blatant liar.

Maybe the Happy Pear twins would give them a spot in behind and feed them free porridge every morning..

You couldn't see any other reason why she would have a problem with McDonalds? Her, a Dr who has first hand experience of the impact on obesity on peoples overall health and who consistently communicates her concerns on it on her show?

We expect our educated professionals to perform with professionalism and dignity and for the best interests of those they work with at heart. Then when they do it, we scream BS.

The Bishop Basher

Tell me how wrote: »

You couldn't see any other reason why she would have a problem with McDonalds? Her, a Dr who has first hand experience of the impact on obesity on peoples overall health and who consistently communicates her concerns on it on her show?

We expect our educated professionals to perform with professionalism and dignity and for the best interests of those they work with at heart. Then when they do it, we scream BS.

Let’s, for a moment, compare the impact on her and her families quality of life with

A) A McDonalds in the town
A halting site beside her gaff

Setting aside the additional impact on the value of her home which she publicly said she was in trouble with some years ago..

And you genuinely believe she would actively campaign against a McDonalds but be perfectly fine and accepting of halting site next door ?

Pull the other one..

She’s not fooling anyone.. nor are you..

Tell me how

Rennaws wrote: »

She’s not fooling anyone.. nor are you..

Yawn.

ButtersSuki

Tell me how wrote: »

You couldn't see any other reason why she would have a problem with McDonalds? Her, a Dr who has first hand experience of the impact on obesity on peoples overall health and who consistently communicates her concerns on it on her show?

We expect our educated professionals to perform with professionalism and dignity and for the best interests of those they work with at heart. Then when they do it, we scream BS.

That's it, focus on the McDonalds aspect AND NOT the Ciara welcoming travellers into her backyard bullsh*t, which was the substantive part of the post.

BTW, I fully agree that she can oppose McDonald's for a variety of reasons, including her former Medical background, but I don't find her claims on travellers to be entirely honest.

Do you believe her when she said she'd not be opposed to travellers taking their caravans and parking in her neighbourhood?

The Bishop Basher

Tell me how wrote: »

Yawn.

Tremendous contribution.

Well done.

You obviously have no response so we’ll let you off there...

The Bishop Basher

ButtersSuki wrote: »

BTW, I fully agree that she can oppose McDonald's for a variety of reasons, including her former Medical background,

So do I as it happens..

McDonalds was just for comparative purposes.

I would have thought that was obvious.

With or without it, she was talking sh1te.

Tell me how

Rennaws wrote:

Tremendous contribution.

Well done.

You obviously have no response so we’ll let you off there...

Be honest, the only response you are looking for is one that adds to the circle jerk of how terrible Ciara is.

Whatever about living in South Dublin, she's living rent free in the heads of many here.

But the "liberals" are the ones easily triggered. :pac: :pac: Give over.

The Bishop Basher

Tell me how wrote: »

Be honest, the only response you are looking for is one that adds to the circle jerk of how terrible Ciara is.

Whatever about living in South Dublin, she's living rent free in the heads of many here.

But the "liberals" are the ones easily triggered. :pac: :pac: Give over.

It’s north Wicklow and Ciara would scream blue murder if the council tried to house travellers anywhere near her.

I don’t blame her for that at all. I would be exactly the same.

I’m just honest about it.

As for your “triggered” nonsense, it’s one of those words I cringe every time I see it used..

I don’t get “triggered”.

I’m neither American nor sensitive..

Tell me how

Rennaws wrote:

I’m neither American nor sensitive..

Your posts paint a different picture.

Say Your Number

Mod This ends here lads.

The Bishop Basher

So as I was saying..

Ciara's priorities seem a little messed up if she's prepared to protest against McDonalds but has no problem with a halting site..

It doesn't add up and I can't see her neighbours being too happy with her traveling friends either.

That said, I'd love to see her actually doing something positive like making a program where she stays on a halting site for a few nights and gets to learn more about their culture and way of life.

I did something similar as a teenager. I was about 15 when I signed up for what was called the "Urban Plunge" where they took kids like me from places like Greystones and put us in disadvantaged areas, staying with local families.

I stayed in Sean McDermott St flats. It was interesting and I still remember the experience vividly. I met some great people but it was a different world.

It opened my eyes and taught me a lot about people.

Shame it's not still offered in schools..

There's nothing stopping Ciara though..