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

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Very quiet here today. I thought all hell would break lose over suggestion for banning Michael Jacksons music from the airways.

it's been banned from the radio in various countries by now; Ryan Tubridy has also banned it from his radio show, as has Ray D'Arcy.

Lads tbqh its getting pretty tiresome that a small number of people are expressing the same old boring disquiet when certain views are shared by this broadcaster which are probably shared by a large proportion of listeners.

Newstalk is, after all, a private enterprise. And in this case, people vote with their radio-dials. Its hardly very shocking to be uncomfortable at the idea of supporting the legacy of Michael Jackson.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Very quiet here today. I thought all hell would break lose over suggestion for banning Michael Jacksons music from the airways.

Well I was delighted someone called Ryan Tubridy a “PC snowflake “ for removing all Michael Jackson music from his show! Ciara was totally on Ryan’s side and supported this move .




(P.s, I have yet seen Leaving Neverland , I might change my mind when I do )

mzungu

Newstalk don't have any music shows so they wouldn't have been playing MJ songs anyway. I guess they could never really ban something that they would not be playing?

But from what I see the list of stations banning his music is rising everyday. Therefore I don't see the problem in Ciara Kelly supporting it.


Maybe if the need arises in future they can play the Weird Al Jankovic parody!

meeeeh

I'm actually one of those people who separate art from the artist. I have no problem watching Polanski movies, I would go to Caravaggio exhibition and I would not mind listening to Michael Jackson music if I liked it enough (I don't). But radio stations also cater to people who don't feel like me so at the moment I think it's sensible for radio stations to avoid his music. Anyway I don't think his music was played much lately so playing Thriller or something would almost feel like a declaration of support.

Sleeper12

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

Newstalk is, after all, a private enterprise. And in this case, people vote with their radio-dials. Its hardly very shocking to be uncomfortable at the idea of supporting the legacy of Michael Jackson.

I was never a Jackson fan and I don't like his music. I don't know if Jackson is guilty or not but he was cleared by a court of law when alive and is not around to tell his side of the story.

The likes of Gary Glitter has his songs banned almost worldwide and rightly so. He's been convicted in several courts of law. It deprives Glitter of an income & that's a good thing. It's his punishment.

Jackson has never been convicted of any crime. In fact he was acquitted. He's no longer alive. Banning his music doesn't punish him it punishes his family. His children. I think it's a bad decision. The same nonsense as banning It's cold outside or Fairytale of new York. It's pandering to the permanently offended imo.

limnam

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Very quiet here today. I thought all hell would break lose over suggestion for banning Michael Jacksons music from the airways.

I turned on the radio. Heard herself discussing pelvic thrusting.


Gave it a wide berth.


Horrific radio.

Tell me how

I don't know how radio stations judge on whether to play music from a particular performer or not. A great many artists have had unsavoury behaviours uncovered whether drugs/alcohol abuse, violence, misogny, or sexual abuse.

I think the fact that Jackson was not convicted while alive even though he had been charged is a mitigating factor of sorts.

I also think that blanket banning art outside of judicial evidence that a crime was committed sets a dangerous precedent.

But, in this instance, some people are very strongly of the opinion that MJ was a paedophile and to ignore this is subjecting his victims to further suffering.

Louis Theroux is one such person who is convinced of Jacksons guilt and I think he is fairly objective in how he forms opinions.

Maybe stations could step back from playing songs but monitor digital streaming and purchases of Jackson music and if it remains at a normal level, they could argue the public would generally like to hear the songs.

Tell me how

limnam wrote: »

I turned on the radio. Heard herself discussing pelvic thrusting.


Gave it a wide berth.


Horrific radio.

Way to understand context.

Tell me how

mzungu wrote: »

Newstalk don't have any music shows so they wouldn't have been playing MJ songs anyway. I guess they could never really ban something that they would not be playing anyway?

But from what I see the list of stations banning his music is rising everyday. Therefore I don't see the problem in Ciara Kelly supporting it.


Maybe if the need arises in future they can play the Weird Al Jankovic parody!

Tom Dunne. Week nights at ten.

Tom was a massive fan of Ryan Adams music, in light of recent allegations about him, Tom was discussing it on his show and said that he initially thought that he could separate the art from the artist and continue to play it but he then said as more and more came out that he felt that he couldn't do so and had decided to stop playing Adam's music. He did add "for the time being" at the end of his statement which I found interesting.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

But, in this instance, some people are very strongly of the opinion that MJ was a paedophile and to ignore this is subjecting his victims to further suffering.

I'm on my phone so can't highlight in bold. If I could I'd highlight the word "opinion" in your post. Opinion shouldn't come into it. Opinion isn't fact nor is it law.

There is nothing wrong with not playing his music. If a radio station stopped playing his most wouldn't notice. It's announcing that they will no longer play the music that I have a problem with. They are publicly condemning someone without due process.

I'm not getting into weather he's guilty or not. There are other threads for that.

givyjoe

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

it's been banned from the radio in various countries by now; Ryan Tubridy has also banned it from his radio show, as has Ray D'Arcy.

Lads tbqh its getting pretty tiresome that a small number of people are expressing the same old boring disquiet when certain views are shared by this broadcaster which are probably shared by a large proportion of listeners.

Newstalk is, after all, a private enterprise. And in this case, people vote with their radio-dials. Its hardly very shocking to be uncomfortable at the idea of supporting the legacy of Michael Jackson.

Mickey j aside.. small number? It seems to be about half of, if not more of the regular posters here.

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm on my phone so can't highlight in bold. If I could I'd highlight the word "opinion" in your post. Opinion shouldn't come into it. Opinion isn't fact nor is it law.

There is nothing wrong with not playing his music. If a radio station stopped playing his most wouldn't notice. It's announcing that they will no longer play the music that I have a problem with. They are publicly condemning someone without due process.

I'm not getting into weather he's guilty or not. There are other threads for that.

I would love if people took this in to account when saying how Ciara is the worst presenter on the planet. :D:D

I take your point, but, would you say then that Saville wasn't guilty?

Every day we make decisions based on opinions.

Spanish Eyes

Must be more income from presenting than from being a qualified doctor all the same.

Some rooting around required as to why she chose Dinny above her profession.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

Mickey j aside.. small number? It seems to be about half of, if not more of the regular posters here.

Yes there are more than half of people here who just rehash the same arguments but it's still a small group.

Anyway back to Ciara, it was nice to discover who is behind Titania McGrath. Some of "her" tweets are brilliant.

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

Mickey j aside.. small number? It seems to be about half of, if not more of the regular posters here.

With all due respect to the posters of this forum, I don't think they're a representative sample of listenership.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote:

I would love if people took this in to account when saying how Ciara is the worst presenter on the planet.

I'm not one of those. I think she can be terrible & great. I was a massive Gerry Ryan fan and most likely heard all of his shows over 20 years or so. Some days I hated him. No one is perfect & I truly believe Ciara still learning her craft. I think she'll get better.

Tell me how wrote:

I take your point, but, would you say then that Saville wasn't guilty?

Saville wasn't investigated for 10 years by the FBI only to come out clean. Savills house wasn't raided. His computer, laptop, hard drive etc weren't forensically examined with nothing illegal found. Saville was never equitted & for jury members to state afterwards that it wasn't reasonable doubt but they stated that they totally believed him innocent and they accusing family were lyers and money motivated.

I don't see any similarities between Jackson & Saville at all. This is not to say Jackson is innocent because none of us know one way or another. I do think that fact that the state threw everything they had at him while alive and he was acquitted should stand for something. Saville never had to prove himself

mzungu

Tell me how wrote: »

Tom Dunne. Week nights at ten.

Tom was a massive fan of Ryan Adams music, in light of recent allegations about him, Tom was discussing it on his show and said that he initially thought that he could separate the art from the artist and continue to play it but he then said as more and more came out that he felt that he couldn't do so and had decided to stop playing Adam's music. He did add "for the time being" at the end of his statement which I found interesting.

Ah, I forgot about Tom Dunne.

meeeeh

I have less romantic view of justice system. Especially when it includes those who can buy silence. Not saying Jackson did that, unlike most I have very little interest in weather he was a paedophile or not. But I don't think being acquitted can stand for much in this case. There were to many payouts.

redbuck

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

With all due respect to the posters of this forum, I don't think they're a representative sample of listenership.

And who is? How would you describe the average daily listener of this show?

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

I have less romantic view of justice system. Especially when it includes those who can buy silence. Not saying Jackson did that, unlike most I have very little interest in weather he was a paedophile or not. But I don't think being acquitted can stand for much in this case. There were to many payouts.

the context of the payouts are also worth mentioning.

He settled the case after the plaintiff gave evidence of identifying marks on Jackson's genitalia. Evidence that I assume would only be known to someone who had seen such characteristics.

It's a very difficult admission to make, but I really believe that the sublimely obvious has been staring us in the face for many years.

Sleeper12

meeeeh wrote:

I have less romantic view of justice system. Especially when it includes those who can buy silence. Not saying Jackson did that, unlike most I have very little interest in weather he was a paedophile or not. But I don't think being acquitted can stand for much in this case. There were to many payouts.

What payouts?

the_pen_turner

i dont know if he was a peadophile or not . the only thing we know for a fact is that he was interviewed , questioned and found not quilty in a court of law.


its a disgrace that any radio station can decide to publically ban his work like this. it is essentially saying that they believe he is quilty when all the evidence says the oposite.

if he was alive it would eb slander but because he is dead that makes it alright.


its a sad day for our country and the values we believe in.

Sleeper12

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

He settled the case after the plaintiff gave evidence of identifying marks on Jackson's genitalia. Evidence that I assume would only be known to someone who had seen such characteristics.

This is probably for the other thread but here goes :

Jordy (the accuser) said that he could identify Jacksons penis. The prosecution, or whatever they are called in a civil case, got him to draw the penis. Jackson then had to submit to an examination by a doctor. Photos were taken. The prosecution then successfully argued that jordys drawing shouldn't be shown in court because it looked nothing like Jacksons penis.

Jackson didn't settle the case. Well he did have to sign the agreement but it was the insurance that insisted he sign. All insurance policies have a clause stating that they decide when to pay out. You have no say in the matter. The same clause is in your home and motor insurance policy. If Jackson refused to sign the settlement agreement the insurance would have been given a get out of jail free card. They could have walked away if he broke the terms of the policy. There are documents submitted to the criminal trial stating that the insurance settled the first case against Jacksons wishes.

Jordy left country before he could be subpoenaed to give evidence in the second court case. The settlement had no gagging order & I believe a gagging order can't apply in a criminal court case. Anyway Jordy, as an adult refused to give evidence under oath against Jackson. He had his 22 million & had a chance to stop this "monster" hurting other children. He left the country and didn't come back till after Jackson was acquitted

givyjoe

redbuck wrote: »

And who is? How would you describe the average daily listener of this show?

Considering it's likely the majority of the people listening to her show, are the same people who listenes to G Hook in the same timeslot.

Sleeper12

givyjoe wrote:

Considering it's likely the majority of the people listening to her show, are the same people who listenes to G Hook in the same timeslot.

The same only more listening

goochy

cant wait to hear about international womens day on a day when anything goes - hope they mention that academic who called it out for what it is - a lurve in and chance to feel smug about being a woman

Tell me how

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What payouts?

Chandler Family

Michael Jackson vehemently denied the accusations - made by the father of 13-year old Jordie Chandler - and he was never charged.

A civil case was settled out of court in early 1994 when he paid Jordie Chandler a reported $20m (£14m).

Sleeper12

goochy wrote: »

cant wait to hear about international womens day on a day when anything goes - hope they mention that academic who called it out for what it is - a lurve in and chance to feel smug about being a woman

It's no script Friday. She might forget to cover it with all the wild & wacky calls she gets on a Friday.

Sleeper12

Tell me how wrote: »

Chandler Family

The history of this is the family tried to extort money from Jackson. The Chandler family wouldn't cooperate with a criminal investigation at all. Jackson tried to fight this full on & filed an extortion complaint. Authorities decided not to charge Chandler family with extortion even though the family wouldn't cooperate with the criminal investigation. At this stage Jacksons insurance company stepped in & insisted in settling rather than going to court. Jackson was against this approach but as you know it's up to the insurance company if & when to pay out. If Jackson didn't sign the settlement he would break the terms of his insurance. They could then walk away without paying a penny. Jackson signed & the insurance paid out.


The Chandler had no gagging order yet refused to help the criminal investigation causing the investigation to collapse. Jordy Chandler as an adult fled the country before he could be subpoenaed in the 2nd case against Jackson. He only returned to the states after the trial had ended.


I'll leave the history of Jackson there because it's not really the thread for it. My point isn't his innocence or guilt but genuinely disapointed at stations stating they are pulling his music (music I don't like myself). I read this morning that the Simpson creators are pulling the 1991 episode that had the voice of Jackson. I could write pages & pages trying to explain how I feel But the Pen Turner managed to catch exactly what I try to say in a few sentences

dont know if he was a peadophile or not . the only thing we know for a fact is that he was interviewed , questioned and found not quilty in a court of law.


its a disgrace that any radio station can decide to publically ban his work like this. it is essentially saying that they believe he is quilty when all the evidence says the oposite.

if he was alive it would eb slander but because he is dead that makes it alright.


its a sad day for our country and the values we believe in.

sydthebeat

Jackson had insurance against being outed as a pedophile??