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

Sleeper12

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

That's usually a bad sign.

We live in a democracy. Majority rules. There's really not much more to say about that unless you want to rip up our constitution

Dick Swiveller

Sleeper12 wrote: »

We live in a democracy. Majority rules. There's really not much more to say about that unless you want to rip up our constitution

What has that got to do with what we are discussing?

Sleeper12

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

What has that got to do with what we are discussing?

I said "the majority of the population agree with."


You Quoted this saying "That's usually a bad sign."


I'm just reminding that it's the majority that counts in a democracy. We could go down the road of a dictatorship but they usually don't work out that well in the long run

Dick Swiveller

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I said "the majority of the population agree with."


You Quoted this saying "That's usually a bad sign."


I'm just reminding that it's the majority that counts in a democracy. We could go down the road of a dictatorship but they usually don't work out that well in the long run

Actually, it doesn't matter what the majority of the population thinks about the issue under discussion. It's the lawmakers who will decide if the law should be changed.

robo

Is Dr Ciara turning into the Newstalk version of Joe Duffy?

Tell me how

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Actually, it doesn't matter what the majority of the population thinks about the issue under discussion. It's the lawmakers who will decide if the law should be changed.

The lawmakers are going to review guidelines around how sexual cases are tried.

the Irish Times.

However, he believed it was appropriate to review all aspects of how “such deeply sensitive trials are conducted” and whether further protections should be offered to a victim of sexual assault.

Currently, rape victims act as witnesses in the State’s prosecution but are not entitled to their own legal representation, and this will come up for consideration

Dick Swiveller wrote:

She isn't interested in hearing any of the arguments in favour of using such clothing as evidence

That is absolutely not the case. She is drawing a clear distinction between that which is relevant evidence. such as "the lady was wearing x and when x was found on the ground later it is reasonable to suggest it came from that lady"

What she has a problem with is the suggestion that clothing was used to imply a willingness to engage in a particular act.

Could you body slam a guy who was wearing a UFC t-shirt and use that as evidence that he must have been willing to take part in a bout?

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

The lawmakers are going to review guidelines around how sexual cases are tried.

the Irish Times.





That is absolutely not the case. She is drawing a clear distinction between that which is relevant evidence. such as "the lady was wearing x and when x was found on the ground later it is reasonable to suggest it came from that lady"

What she has a problem with is the suggestion that clothing was used to imply a willingness to engage in a particular act.

Could you body slam a guy who was wearing a UFC t-shirt and use that as evidence that he must have been willing to take part in a bout?

Is that really a valid comparison? Were do we draw the line? Can anything be used as evidence that the complainant was willing to engage in a sexual act? Surely any piece of evidence is shaming the complainant? If Ciara and her friends had there way it would be impossible for a Defence Counsel to mount a defence of their client.

Again, there is a difference between evidence and proof. I don't think it is unreasonable to include items of clothing as evidence. The jury will determine whether it is of any significance.

Tell me how

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Is that really a valid comparison? Were do we draw the line? Can anything be used as evidence that the complainant was willing to engage in a sexual act? Surely any piece of evidence is shaming the complainant? If Ciara and her friends had there way it would be impossible for a Defence Counsel to mount a defence of their client.

Again, there is a difference between evidence and proof. I don't think it is unreasonable to include items of clothing as evidence. The jury will determine whether it is of any significance.

There is a reason why evidence of prior behaviour is usually inadmissible prior to judgement on assault crimes. This is because it was deemed that it could possibly unfairly influence the view of the jury on the person who was on trial. Each case must be tried on it's merits.

Do you think it would be reasonable to suggest that as the guy had been seen buying condoms earlier that day that he was intent of having sex that night? (that's a hypothetical)

Ciara and others are trying to ensure that a woman is not responsible for a mans actions just because he misread the signs.

Dick Swiveller

Tell me how wrote: »

There is a reason why evidence of prior behaviour is usually inadmissible prior to judgement on assault crimes. This is because it was deemed that it could possibly unfairly influence the view of the jury on the person who was on trial. Each case must be tried on it's merits.

Sorry but I don't see how that is anyway relevant to what we are discussing.

Do you think it would be reasonable to suggest that as the guy had been seen buying condoms earlier that day that he was intent of having sex that night? (that's a hypothetical)

Yes, perfectly reasonable in my opinion

Ciara and others are trying to ensure that a woman is not responsible for a mans actions just because he misread the signs.

That is a ridiculous thing to say. The Defence have a job. They are representing their client and will make an argument based on the evidence available. Would Ciara, accept any evidence that suggests the complainant was a willing participant in the alleged sexual act? I doubt it. If she had it her way the Defence wouldn't be able to mount any sort of defence because any questions asked of the complainant would be shaming women.

What you need to understand is there is a sort of cult surrounding women at the moment. Everyone, from politicians to media heads, agree that they are infallible and wonderful and anyone who doesn't go along with this view is a misogynist dinosaur. Only a few days ago Fine Gael proposed a law of women only professorships for christ sake. And Leo, the arch right winger according to some, gave a talk in which he condemned misogyny and bemoaned the terrible plight privileged women in a first world, tolerant, wealthy country suffer from.

Ciara and her so-called campaign is just an extension of the women-are-victims-industry. It gets her a lot of attention (which we know she enjoys); but the worrying aspect of it all is the influence people like her have on our politicians. If they don't change the law around evidence they're misogynistic dinasours. So whenever the privileged, middle class women decide on the latest bandwagon issue, the politicians will immediately accede to their demands. We should be a lot more worried about this nonsense than we are.

Nody

Mod:
I've just had to ban the last two posters above for ignoring the mod warning on not continue the discussion on the legal aspects of the thong issue (what Ciara discuss on the radio show is in scope for obvious reason); do us in the mod team a favour and don't make us have to repeat this action due to ignoring three mod warnings on the topic (with this being the fourth on thread warning in two days).

i71jskz5xu42pb

robo wrote: »

Is Dr Ciara turning into the Newstalk version of Joe Duffy?

I think Newstalk would be pretty happy if Lunchtime Live turned into the second most popular radio show in the country.

Not for me but there's an audience for it.

meeeeh

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

I think Newstalk would be pretty happy if Lunchtime Live turned into the second most popular radio show in the country.

Not for me but there's an audience for it.

I quite like the programme but if they take more calls from the listeners I'm switching.

i71jskz5xu42pb

meeeeh wrote: »

I quite like the programme but if they take more calls from the listeners I'm switching.

The calls are brutal. There was a segment a month or two ago, some chef on with Ciara and some dose called in complaining that the portion size he got in some restaurant was too small. The chef literally said "it feels like I'm on Joe Duffy". So bad it's almost good.

buckfasterer

Milan Curved Madman wrote: »

The calls are brutal. There was a segment a month or two ago, some chef on with Ciara and some dose called in complaining that the portion size he got in some restaurant was too small. The chef literally said "it feels like I'm on Joe Duffy". So bad it's almost good.

I heard that, was that the old guy who was banging on about how much money he always had in his pocket all the time?

meeeeh

I came to conclusion that Ciara Kelly is way better at talking to callers than her stand ins. I don't mind Susan Keogh or Andrea Gilligan otherwise but their conversations with people phoning in are like pulling your teeth out.

maxwell smart

I'm not a fan of Ciara but I can't stop listening to it from 12 - 1pm

Couple of reasons (bear on mind I'm usually in the car at this time)
1. I can't be listening to 'music'
2. I'm too lazy to do some sort of internet thing so I can listen to LBC or similar
3. I agree with almost none of Ciara's opinions and love listening to guests who disagree with her giving her short shrift.


The show has some sort of hypnotic effect on me, like listening to a car crash perhaps?

Perhaps it's the same for many on here as the majority complain about her yet obviously still listen?? It's odd don't you think?

The Bishop Basher

maxwell smart wrote: »

Perhaps it's the same for many on here as the majority complain about her yet obviously still listen?? It's odd don't you think?

People do like to watch things they find annoying just to have a good moan.

I genuinely don't watch TV or listen to the radio. I just put my own tunes on.

On the odd occasion i'll listen back to a show when i hear there's been something controversial, topical or whatever which is usually on here.

This thread and others must help her ratings to some extent.

I assume they include the number of people who listen back to a show in the overall figures ?

Sleeper12

Rennaws wrote:

People do like to watch things they find annoying just to have a good moan.

I moan & praise depending on the show. Its a very sad life someone must have to listen only to criticise.

k99_64

Jesus christ.

Stating that a woman was raped by her father.

"I have to correct you, it wasnt my father it was the neighbour...."

How badly can you **** up on radio?

ButtersSuki

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I moan & praise depending on the show. Its a very sad life someone must have to listen only to criticise.

I don't think anyone does that to be fair. I certainly don't. Just because I haven't found anything worth praising doesn't mean I (or others) listen only to criticise; and I have given her and the show many opportunities to prove me wrong.

jay0109

maxwell smart wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Ciara but I can't stop listening to it from 12 - 1pm

Couple of reasons (bear on mind I'm usually in the car at this time)
1. I can't be listening to 'music'
2. I'm too lazy to do some sort of internet thing so I can listen to LBC or similar
3. I agree with almost none of Ciara's opinions and love listening to guests who disagree with her giving her short shrift.


The show has some sort of hypnotic effect on me, like listening to a car crash perhaps?

Perhaps it's the same for many on here as the majority complain about her yet obviously still listen?? It's odd don't you think?

Niall Boylan show on Classic Hits from 12pm to 2pm will cure that for you

The Bishop Basher

k99_64 wrote: »

Jesus christ.

Stating that a woman was raped by her father.

"I have to correct you, it wasnt my father it was the neighbour...."

How badly can you **** up on radio?

Wow

That’s really bad..

She has form though..

You’d think she’d have learned her lesson last time..

ButtersSuki

Genuine question: did Ciara mention International Men's day today?

meeeeh

She laughed at those who complained that she didn't, wished happy men's day and mentioned it's also a toilet day. Pat Kenny as far as I know didn't mention it at all.

As for the rape victim talking to her it was a bit sloppy to mess up who the perpetrator was and she apologised straight away. However I think the actual interview was a lot more important to listen to. When a victim of rape says that she was not well at all during the four years tge whole thing dragged for and was suicidal maybe that's the part people should concentrate on. But I guess that's not important.

k99_64

meeeeh wrote: »

She laughed at those who complained that she didn't. Pat Kenny as far as I know didn't mention it at all.

As for the rape victim talking to her it was a bit sloppy to mess up who the perpetrator was and she apologised straight away. However I think the actual interview was a lot more important to listen to. When a victim of rape says that she was not well at all during the four years tge whole thing dragged for and was suicidal maybe that's the part people should concentrate on. But I guess that's not important.

Yeah she was sarcastic as balls about mens day.

Im not saying that the interview shouldnt have been done, nor that it wasnt a powerful piece from the victim that needs to be highlighted.

Im saying that to 'mess up who the perpetrator was' is not sloppy its downright incompetence. She wouldnt have even corrected herself and a tweet had gone out already, except that the victim had to correct her. She said it was the victims father, how do you do something so stupid on radio, and the dad must have gotten some shock as well as the whole family. But i guess that's not important.

morebarn2

A listener texted in to ask would she be mentioning it and then she referred to it jokingly. She said something like ,” isn’t that every day really” and as aforementioned also referred to it being International Toilet Day. Signed off on it by hoping someone was taking care of and looking after all the men today and then then “ let’s move on to more important things “.

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Genuine question: did Ciara mention International Men's day today?

two wheels good

k99_64 wrote: »

Yeah she was sarcastic as balls about mens day.

Im not saying that the interview shouldnt have been done, nor that it wasnt a powerful piece from the victim that needs to be highlighted.

Im saying that to 'mess up who the perpetrator was' is not sloppy its downright incompetence. She wouldnt have even corrected herself and a tweet had gone out already, except that the victim had to correct her. She said it was the victims father, how do you do something so stupid on radio, and the dad must have gotten some shock as well as the whole family. But i guess that's not important.

Nah, I think that's an exaggeration. Any sarcasm was directed at the whinging text that came in, rather then WMD

But she did dismiss the topic - very humorously I thought. Made me smile anyway. See morebarn2's post above for details.

ButtersSuki

two wheels good wrote: »

Nah, I think that's an exaggeration. Any sarcasm was directed at the whinging text that came in, rather then WMD

But she did dismiss the topic - very humorously I thought. Made me smile anyway. See morebarn2's post above for details.

I'm shocked; not.

I just wonder would such a jolly jape be received as well were it male presenter joking about International Women's Day?

two wheels good

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I'm shocked; not.

I just wonder would such a jolly jape be received as well were it male presenter joking about International Women's Day?

I could imagine two particular male Newstalk presenters doing just that and the outrage would be much the same but from a different cohort of listeners.

The Bishop Basher

two wheels good wrote: »

I could imagine two particular male Newstalk presenters doing just that and the outrage would be much the same but from a different cohort of listeners.

Imagine..

Having just accidentally accused the guests father of raping her..

The outrage would be off the scale..