Ben Gilroy looking to gatecrash RTE's live Euro election debate

coylemj

Ben is in court looking to get onto the RTE TV live debate for Dublin candidates for the Euro election. Another candidate called Eamonn Murphy has asked to be joined to Ben's case.

If you live in the Dublin Euro electoral area, you've probably already received Murphy's literature, he is one of the self-styled 'pro-life' people who refuse to accept the result of the referendum which scrapped the 8th amendment.

RTE had offered to broadcast a 1 minute video from the candidates not appearing in the live debate. Murphy has already supplied his video but RTE (suprise, surprise) are refusing to show it as they claim 'it contravened the Broadcasting Act and Broadcast Authority of Ireland's code.' If you read his literature you'd have no problem accepting that nothing the guy says is fit to be broadcast so putting him on live TV would be a complete no-no.

Gilroy's case is listed to be heard this afternoon. With his track record in the courts and the accusations of corruption he's levelled against multiple judges, I've no doubt he'll get a sympathetic hearing :rolleyes:


Two Euro election candidates go to High Court over non-inclusion in RTÉ debate

whippet

I have a degree of sympathy for Gilroy here .. it should be equal time allowed across the board .. however I also have sympathy for RTE .. there are far to many candidates to accommodate equally and if you had to there would be no valuable message from any of them.

Mind you the lesser of two evils would be not having to hear anything of Gilroy on our state broadcaster at all. I believe he has nothing constructive to offer our society and his methods and actions in the last decade have been more than questionable

vid36

whippet wrote: »

I have a degree of sympathy for Gilroy here .. it should be equal time allowed across the board .. however I also have sympathy for RTE .. there are far to many candidates to accommodate equally and if you had to there would be no valuable message from any of them.

Mind you the lesser of two evils would be not having to hear anything of Gilroy on our state broadcaster at all. I believe he has nothing constructive to offer our society and his methods and actions in the last decade have been more than questionable

Why not run two debates but excluding candidates from debates can have a material effect on the outcome.

Utter Consternation

Could they not live stream the headbangers and only show the main people on the actual channel? Split them up into regular candidates for TV and joke candidates (like that dangerous loon) on a live stream.

ArmaniJeanss

RTE's rules don't seem particularly unfair. (I can't actually find a link to them though so its from memory).
I think anyone who ran in the last council elections and got even a really small percentage would be automatically invited.

Logically (but not necessarily legally) there needs to be some cut-off criteria as theoretically 100s or 1000s of people could put themselves forward as candidates to be an MEP.

vid36

They excluded Ming from the main debate last time even though he was a sitting TD and included a Labour Senator with dreadful polling numbers.

vid36

I bet Senator Higgins will get an invite even though she has never contested a democratic election previously.

RayCun

https://www.thejournal.ie/ben-gilroy-high-court-rte-mep-debates-4632454-May2019/

a spokeswoman for RTÉ outlined the criteria by which the broadcaster had invited candidates to take part in the upcoming debates.

She explained that candidates were invited if they were already elected as an MEP, TD, councillor or Senator.

However, she said that parties could not have two representatives in the same debate, and that where a party had more than one candidate standing in a single constituency, representatives who had already been elected would be given priority.

Candidates were also invited to appear if they did not get elected in the most recent European, General, Local or Presidential election, but still achieved 5% or more of the vote in their constituency.

Other candidates were invited if the party for which they are standing won at least one seat in the last European election, two seats in the last General election, or at least five seats in the last local elections, or achieved 5% of the national vote in any of those elections.

Senator Higgins will probably be invited as a sitting parliamentarian

mikeym

All candidates should be treated equally. They should have Two debates.

I know Ben Gilroy doesn't appeal to everyone but he shouldn't be excluded from the debate.

cruizer101

Whilst there is a lot of crazies running and a debate with all the candidates in a constituency is probably unfeasible (think there is 23 for south) I do think it is unfair to exclude certain candidates, it does put them at a disadvantage.
That said I'm not really sure what the solution is other than let them each have a few min airtime where they can say what they want.

whippet

I’d prefer no debate.

Gilroy does not know how to debate. He always starts every conversation with an assertion which is usually incorrect and then bases the rest of his contribution on this false fact

vid36

If you limited it to sitting elected representatives or major parties then you effectively create a closed shop.

is_that_so

mikeym wrote: »

All candidates should be treated equally. They should have Two debates.

I know Ben Gilroy doesn't appeal to everyone but he shouldn't be excluded from the debate.

He can livestream himself on YouTube without too many restrictions.

is_that_so

vid36 wrote: »

If you limited it to sitting elected representatives or major parties then you effectively create a closed shop.

They have widened the net a bit more than that. He satisfies none of the criteria.

RayCun

mikeym wrote: »

All candidates should be treated equally. They should have Two debates.

I know Ben Gilroy doesn't appeal to everyone but he shouldn't be excluded from the debate.

Nobody has a right to airtime

vid36 wrote: »

If you limited it to sitting elected representatives or major parties then you effectively create a closed shop.

But they haven't. Anyone who got 5% of the vote in their constituency gets in, and you don't have to be a major party to get 5 seats in local elections.

cobhguy28

RayCun wrote: »

Nobody has a right to airtime



But they haven't. Anyone who got 5% of the vote in their constituency gets in, and you don't have to be a major party to get 5 seats in local elections.

This is his fourth time running in an election, I believe he only does it for the attention and a bit of air time.

eagle eye

He has the same right to be heard as every other candidate.
If you are leaving out candidates you are actively working against them as others get a bigger audience to advertise themselves to.
Both of the candidates mentioned in the OP sound like complete muppets to me but they still deserve the same exposure as the rest of the candidates.
Simple solution is extend the running time of the show.

ArmaniJeanss

Its fairly standard worldwide by the way to limit debate attendance by some criteria.
e.g., we had multiple Trump v Clinton debates but every other candidate was excluded because of polling figures.
BBC election debates don't feature the Monster Raving Looney Party or Lord Bucketheads grouping, nor a lot of other more serious parties.

RayCun

eagle eye wrote: »

If you are leaving out candidates you are actively working against them

No, that's just not true.

Some candidates have demonstrated that they have support, and therefore people are likely to be interested in what they have to say. Others haven't.

_Brian

I saw a few clips of Gilroy around his yellow vest attempt at getting notoriety.
The man is a wind bag anti-establishment nut with nothing of true substance to add to any debate but lives to have people listening to him.

A debate on ANY topic is better without him.

coylemj

The problem that RTE knows well that if there's a big panel then it will become a shouting match with everyone competing for airtime, just like the early Republican primaries in the US 2016 presidential election. Which, as we all know, was won by the loudest and most obnoxious candidate. You can't let someone on a live TV debate, just because they decided to be a candidate.

People like Ming Flanagan trade in insults and dubious facts. Sinn Fein's strategists (i.e. the West Belfast brigade who run the party) have decided that all of their candidates should run with the scare tactic of a European Army. Both big turnoffs. Barry Andrew's policy statements are so bland and generic, they could have been lifted straight from Richie Ryan's 1979 campaign.

Personally I will give all of the debates a miss. Because each candidate is just trotting out soundbites and trying to talk down to the other candidates.

L1011

The other two debates have already happened and it's impractical to schedule topups or second goes for those. There are unhappy candidates for both

Eamonn Murphy is trying to attach to this challenge but his paperwork appears to be nonsense like with the HSE injunction.

Hurrache

He lost the case anyway.

eagle eye

RayCun wrote:

No, that's just not true.

Some candidates have demonstrated that they have support, and therefore people are likely to be interested in what they have to say. Others haven't.

They are nit going on there to talk to those that already support them, they are looking for more people to vote for them.
Every candidate deserves to be treated equally.

Victor

Update: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/court-dismisses-ben-gilroy-s-challenge-to-exclusion-from-rt%C3%A9-debate-1.3892312

cruizer101

RayCun wrote: »

Nobody has a right to airtime

True, but if airtime is being given it should be given equally.

RTE have set out criteria but there could well be valid candidates that stand outside of that criteria.
The fact is that it is unfair to give certain candidates more airtime than others, if there are too many candidates for a debate then don't have one, look for alternative methods to give equal airtime to all.

L1011

Interestingly the criteria used by RTE to select candidates weren't applied for Midlands North West either this time around (Labour and Green candidates met the party having 2 or more TDs) or last time (Ming was a sitting TD) and appear to have had a clause thrown in at the end to justify Casey - there is only one "national election" and failed Presidential candidate rarely run for anything else

However, a serial failed candidate polling 1% would not get on anywhere in the world

randomrb

The problem with guaranteeing all candidates airtime is that you will have everyone running just to get their cause on RTE for 2 mins and it would completely diminish any serious debate

whippet

With regards to cost awarded - how is this enforced. Would I be right in thinking that Gilroy must have some whopper bills racked up? Considering he won't even contribute to a mortgage to ensure his wife and kids have security of a family home he obviously won't hand up money for costs in high court actions he has lost?

The Specialist

whippet wrote: »

With regards to cost awarded - how is this enforced. Would I be right in thinking that Gilroy must have some whopper bills racked up? Considering he won't even contribute to a mortgage to ensure his wife and kids have security of a family home he obviously won't hand up money for costs in high court actions he has lost?

He doesn't believe anyone should ever have to pay anything, and when the consequences of not paying those things come home to roost, he doesn't believe its fair that the people should suffer them.

I say give him airtime and let the whole nation see what a grade A gob****e he is.

coylemj

The Specialist wrote: »

I say give him airtime and let the whole nation see what a grade A gob****e he is.

Yes, let someone go on TV and the public will see what a vacuous gobsh1te he really is.

As happened in the US 2016 presidential election.

L1011

And Johnson, Farage and Rees Mogg

cruizer101

The funny thing had there been a debate with all candidates or even a quick interview with each they would have been looking at 3 min each (assuming hour long show), where as they attention he has got through the court case probably far exceeds that exposure.
A lot of people may not like him but a lot more people know who he is now than before any of this.

coylemj

cruizer101 wrote: »

...where as they attention he has got through the court case probably far exceeds that exposure.
A lot of people may not like him but a lot more people know who he is now than before any of this.

The incremental publicity he achieved yesterday was virtually zero.

People who follow media reports of court cases are all too aware of who he is, those who don't couldn't care less and know as much about him today as they did before he took this case.

Gilroy going to court is about as newsworthy as Trump tweeting about the 'witch hunt' Mueller investigation - ho hum!

cruizer101

coylemj wrote: »

The incremental publicity he achieved yesterday was virtually zero.

People who follow media reports of court cases are all too aware of who he is, those who don't couldn't care less and know as much about him today as they did before he took this case.

Gilroy going to court is about as newsworthy as Trump tweeting about the 'witch hunt' Mueller investigation - ho hum!

It made the main page of the journal, and I think some other news sites but can't confirm, so there is every chance people who may not have been aware of him before hand now are.
It doesn't matter if it is newsworthy or not, his name was getting out there which is more than can be said of a quite number of other candidates.

blueythebear

Gilroy standing outside rte with his mouth taped shut this evening... ten mins of video of this. Only good thing was we didnt have to listen to his usual sh**e talk.

He seems to be back in the circuit court on friday for repossession proceedings... be interesting to see how that goes. An order for possession granted a week before the election? He'll really need that MEP job then!

Agent Smith

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Its fairly standard worldwide by the way to limit debate attendance by some criteria.
e.g., we had multiple Trump v Clinton debates but every other candidate was excluded because of polling figures.
BBC election debates don't feature the Monster Raving Looney Party or Lord Bucketheads grouping, nor a lot of other more serious parties.

Buckethead is bang on the money....

Squatter

mikeym wrote: »

All candidates should be treated equally. They should have Two debates.

I know Ben Gilroy doesn't appeal to everyone but he shouldn't be excluded from the debate.

They could put him on TG4. That would achieve the twin objectives of giving him a platform while ensuring that very few people had to listen to him.

Squatter

blueythebear wrote: »

Gilroy standing outside rte with his mouth taped shut this evening... ten mins of video of this. Only good thing was we didnt have to listen to his usual sh**e talk.

But surely it's his back passage that should be taped over? After all, that's the orifice that he talks through.

Mod
Now now, keep it clean pls

Sonny noggs

vid36 wrote: »

They excluded Ming from the main debate last time even though he was a sitting TD and included a Labour Senator with dreadful polling numbers.

Ivana Bacik?