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

Birneybau

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This thread reads like an incel circle jerk.

Is that not an oxymoron?

Scott Tenorman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This thread reads like an incel circle jerk.

Pathetic stuff going in here. :eek:

Some people clearly need to get a grip!

Harry Palmr

Kelly just going all Falling Down there!

Tell me how

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Caught a bit of this in the car yesterday. Same usual predictable response from her. What the guy said was obviously silly - and the poor girl was caught a bit off guard with the out of context nature of the question. But it's not enough today to say the guy just said something a little stupid because he was nervous or trying to be funny. It's obviously this MAN trying to demonstrate his superiority over the woman by belittling her sporting achievement. Two core points that Kelly missed were that the guy was mortified and immediately apologised to Ada, and that she didn't even take offence to what he said and only became aware of the controversy when she looked up Twitter. People like Ciara Kelly using what this guy said to drive their own agenda.

And the most ridiculous part of this is that Kelly then used to drive a discussion on lack of coverage for women's sports. The ONLY time that she has ever discussed women's football on the show was when she could use it as a vehicle to drive her own anti man agenda. She said that she has no interest in sport, but it's apparently consistent then to berate men for not watching women's sport, when she hates all sport herself.

I just laugh at the show when I hear it in passing these days. It's so over the top it's like a feminist's Alan Partridge at this stage.

Wow. This is quite impressive in hitting most of the key points from the comical Ali commentary coookbook.

Pointing out that you don't listen anymore

Caught a bit of this in the car yesterday. .......

I just laugh at the show when I hear it in passing these days.

Giving textbook examples of irony.

People like Ciara Kelly using what this guy said to drive their own agenda.

Same usual predictable response from her.

Missing the point entirely

It's obviously this MAN trying to demonstrate his superiority over the woman by belittling her sporting achievement.

Flat out lying about what was said.

apparently consistent then to berate men for not watching women's sport

You lose marks for not commenting on the texts she read out so you don't quite get the full house.

FreudianSlippers

Birneybau wrote: »

Is that not an oxymoron?

Touché :pac:

buckfasterer

It's all very fake nonsense about Friday having "No script or running order". What station in their right mind would actually allow that? And in the ads they are asking for suggestions for stuff to talk about, will that not give them a script?

buckfasterer

buckfasterer wrote: »

It's all very fake nonsense about Friday having "No script or running order". What station in their right mind would actually allow that? And in the ads they are asking for suggestions for stuff to talk about, will that not give them a script?

yeah and they've done it so often now that its no biggie. But the way Ciara Kelly goes on about it you'd swear she invented the wheel..........."unscripted" "God help me" "are we mad" "anything could happen" " I could end up talking to myself" cackle cackle cackle......

Sleeper12

buckfasterer wrote:

It's all very fake nonsense about Friday having "No script or running order". What station in their right mind would actually allow that? And in the ads they are asking for suggestions for stuff to talk about, will that not give them a script?

The last one they did almost every single call had something to sell. "oh I'm starting a coffee morning" or something like that. Not a single call about something juicy or contentious. It was actually quite bland

Ciaran_B

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This thread reads like an incel circle jerk.

Yep. The stench of MRA-loser is overwhelming.

StreetLight

Yesterday, Ciara corrected a middle-aged male caller for referring to a woman as a 'girl'. Today, in a discussion with another middle-aged male, she asked him if he thought Tinder was a good way of meeting girls.

J Mysterio

Sleeper12 wrote: »

The last one they did almost every single call had something to sell. "oh I'm starting a coffee morning" or something like that. Not a single call about something juicy or contentious. It was actually quite bland

Go in for a bit of Niall Boylan
That shıt is unscripted!

Del.Monte

She was priceless today - led off with a mention of the prick who murdered the girl winning his appeal against the use of mobile phone evidence in his conviction and then spent a large amount of time bigging up Tinder. Reminiscent of Pat Kenny hyping up 50 Shades of Grey at the same time as the trial of the aforementioned prick. Incredible that they just don't seem to get it.

Tell me how

Del.Monte wrote: »

She was priceless today - led off with a mention of the prick who murdered the girl winning his appeal against the use of mobile phone evidence in his conviction and then spent a large amount of time bigging up Tinder. Reminiscent of Pat Kenny hyping up 50 Shades of Grey at the same time as the trial of the aforementioned prick. Incredible that they just don't seem to get it.

What is "it" that they just don't seem to get?

How do you think they should cover items which are in the news?

FreudianSlippers

Tell me how wrote: »

What is "it" that they just don't seem to get?

How do you think they should cover items which are in the news?

Like I guess there's some tenuous connection between mobile phone in the first story regarding the Courts and mobile phone in the Tinder story... but other than that I'm struggling to come up with even the loosest logic there.

meeeeh

Don't you know that everyone on tinder likes flying model aeroplanes.

Ol' Donie

StreetLight wrote: »

Yesterday, Ciara corrected a middle-aged male caller for referring to a woman as a 'girl'. Today, in a discussion with another middle-aged male, she asked him if he thought Tinder was a good way of meeting girls.

Noticed that yesterday.

She had no problem reading out a text that said she "had the balls" to address something or other.

Just saying.

redbuck

My god this is garbage radio..

Sleeper12

Sexual assault on a man! It's about time this was covered

Tell me how

redbuck wrote: »

My god this is garbage radio..

You do realise that today is the day when the listener can actually dictate what is being discussed.

Any interest in doing that or would you just rather complain about something which you are choosing to listen to?

Del.Monte

I missed some of this - did anything else happen apart from a smack on the bum? Did he have to ring 999?

meeeeh

Del.Monte wrote: »

I missed some of this - did anything else happen apart from a smack on the bum? Did he have to ring 999?

No it didn't and he didn't but do you think it acceptable to humiliate people like that. And the wagon who did it got a few giggles instead of contempt and someone pulling her on it.

Gravelly

Tell me how wrote: »

You do realise that today is the day when the listener can actually dictate what is being discussed.

Any interest in doing that or would you just rather complain about something which you are choosing to listen to?

Out of curiosity, are you her husband or something? This rush to attack every single post on this thread is a little weird if you don't mind my saying?

meeeeh

Gravelly wrote: »

Out of curiosity, are you her husband or something? This rush to attack every single post on this thread is a little weird if you don't mind my saying?

Out of curiosity were you dumped by her since you have to constantly attack her?

Gravelly

meeeeh wrote: »

Out of curiosity were you dumped by her since you have to constantly attack her?

Constantly attack her?

You're imagining things Ciara.

Mod note
As per charter no accusing others posters of being a presenter, its an automatic one day ban, no exceptions on this.

Tell me how

Gravelly wrote: »

Out of curiosity, are you her husband or something? This rush to attack every single post on this thread is a little weird if you don't mind my saying?

No. No connection to her or the show or the station. I'm not rushing to attack anything (nice way of putting it mind).

I simply cannot stand consistent subjective negative posting which seems to be motivated by some desire/need to be judgemental in the absence of paying attention to what is actually happening.

I suspect people who drop in to this thread think it is a cess pit of negativity and that I am as bad as the rest for posting as I do but I'd rather ask people to exercise some but of objectivity then just leave it to the righteous claims of those who I think are largely bitter that someone gets paid for just having conversations on the radio.

It is very curious, that when I do ask people to explain their logic, I am simply accused of having an ulterior motivation for asking the question. Few, if any ever can respond logically to the query.

Gravelly

Tell me how wrote: »

No. No connection to her or the show or the station. I'm not rushing to attack anything (nice way of putting it mind).

I simply cannot stand consistent subjective negative posting which seems to be motivated by some desire/need to be judgemental in the absence of paying attention to what is actually happening.

I suspect people who drop in to this thread think it is a cess pit of negativity and that I am as bad as the rest for posting as I do but I'd rather ask people to exercise some but of objectivity then just leave it to the righteous claims of those who I think are largely bitter that someone gets paid for just having conversations on the radio.

It is very curious, that when I do ask people to explain their logic, I am simply accused of having an ulterior motivation for asking the question. Few, if any ever can respond logically to the query.

I'm happy to respond. I feel she isn't a very good presenter, certainly not good enough to be in the prime slot she is, but hey-ho, fair play to her for landing it. I just find it a little curious that a few posters seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this thread. If she was my mother i doubt I'd spend that much time defending her.

But everyone to their own.

*EDIT*

Meant to say, one of the most curious parts is the sheer emotion some of those posters put in.

meeeeh

Gravelly wrote: »

Meant to say, one of the most curious parts is the sheer emotion some of those posters put in.

Oh the irony...

Gravelly

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh the irony...

You're still imagining things love.

JJayoo

I wonder what Ciara thinks of people wanting to ban the Chritmas song 'it's cold outside'?

I remember her and George Hook did a cringy version back before Ciara suddenly became this shining feminist light.

Gotta monitise that feminism

Tell me how

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm happy to respond. I feel she isn't a very good presenter, certainly not good enough to be in the prime slot she is, but hey-ho, fair play to her for landing it. I just find it a little curious that a few posters seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on this thread. If she was my mother i doubt I'd spend that much time defending her.

But everyone to their own.

*EDIT*

Meant to say, one of the most curious parts is the sheer emotion some of those posters put in.

I'm sure I'll get bored of it eventually (or just worn down).

I'm not actually a big fan of the show but I don't see it as anything like the disaster that some claim it to be. I like objective conversation and debate. What I hate about the number and frequency of the complaints is that they turn any conversation about the show, (topics or guests) in to a subjective complaint about the presenter. People are absolutely entitled to subjective opinions but post after post after post from the same people (about someone they are choosing to listen to) moves me to ask them to defend their view. Which they don't usually do.

And, I do laugh, that this is the only show on Newstalk that A, encourages listeners to call in and B, allows listeners to set the agenda such as today. And yet Ciara is still torn to pieces on here.

I would point out that the frequency of my defending (as you put it) Ciara is a direct (and by a distance inferior) ratio to those that complain without objective evidence.