nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

bazermc

RTE.ie on front page says 9:35pm

EPG says 10:35pm

I guess as long as Claire knows what time she is on at........:P

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Conas

RayM wrote: »

"Alt-right" is just another way of saying Neo-Nazi.

Yes, but many people can't define what a Neo-Nazi actually is. Of course many will say:

'Oh I know what it is. I sat down, and watched 'American History X' on the TV, and that's what a Neo-Nazi is'. haha. You know what I'm saying is true.

BlaasForRafa

RayM wrote: »

"Alt-right" is just another way of saying Neo-Nazi.

Neo-Nazi is just another way of smearing anyone who isn't a left-wing sjw.

ThisRegard

It's not.

People are fond of calling those on the left snowflakes but both sides can be as equally touchy by the looks of it.

Conas

ThisRegard wrote: »

It's not.

People are fond of calling those on the left snowflakes but both sides can be as equally touchy by the looks of it.

The right don't go into meltdown mode when they lose, the left on the other hand do.

So long as everything goes their way with regards to Globalism, Feminism, Gay rights etc.... their happy.
They lost once with Trump getting elected, and they have been throwing temper tantrums ever since.

Clarebelly

Colm O'Gorman.......... absolute sickener, and a well paid sickener at 100 grand a year.

donkeykong5

Clarebelly wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman.......... absolute sickener, and a well paid sickener at 100 grand a year.

Brenda power was well able for him.

southstar

funny how Brenda Power often rants on about people the not having the right to be not offended...wonder what her opinion is on the action of causing offence in the first place...are people allowed to be offended at all...i seem to remember her throwing a hissy fit on both the LL show and on that Brendan O Connor show recently when considering Trumps boorish references to women in general and Clinton in particular...perhaps this ban on being offended only applies op minorities...its seems so.I agree that O Gorman comes across as arrogant but what about the other clown with the silly moustache .an anti PC warrior....so hip...so edgy...NOT

Atlantic Dawn

Debate now on drink driving, should be fun.

take everything

Love the audience members smiling at him.
Ciara Kelly going for the jugular.

Atlantic Dawn

Ha ha, Healy-Rae called a gombeen politician.

retro:electro

Take out the words "rural ireland" and replace with, say, the travelling community. Imagine a representive from the travelling community on defending the right to have a drink and drive as there's nothing else for travellers to do in their community and sure what's the harm in a pint it's all they have and they need their cars to get them to the pub. Imagine! There would be absolute outrage. Can't believe this conversation is even happening.

take everything

What is he talking about.
Other causes of accidents have no bearing on whether drink driving is wrong or right.

[Deleted User]

Can't believe he tried to brush the conflict of interest under the carpet ..... Wait yeah I can actually

elperello

I thought Michael HR sounded almost presidential there tonight!

CatFromHue

When it comes to rural ireland they're terrible drivers whether they've had a pint or not

alan partridge aha

Fcuk thought there would be a discussion on schools but the beautiful Maria Steen put paid to that. Brains with a religious outlook buries all bull**** gombeens. Maria go into politics you'd walk it.

Patty O Furniture

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Fcuk thought there would be a discussion on schools but the beautiful Maria Steen put paid to that. Brains with a religious outlook buries all bull**** gombeens. Maria go into politics you'd walk it.

Although Norma Sheeran was acting the part & at one stage i thought she was gonna jump over the table, but Maria certainly talked the talk!

alan partridge aha

Ya she's brilliant

RabbleRouser2k

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Ya she's brilliant

She was certainly sharp-I couldn't really see the reason why Norma Sheahan was there, tbh.
Fine, she's a parent, but she didn't have any notes or research done-it was just based on firsthand experience. Seems she has the annoying habit of many 'parents'-their experiences are all they need-cos they're 'a parent'.

Firsthand experience means that I might be allergic to something-it doesn't meant EVERYONE will be.

Maria surprised me-I may disagree with her on points, but I felt she was far more convincing and firm in her opinions.

horseburger

I found the discussion frustrating in the sense that Claire Byrne interrupted speakers before they had a chance to finish their statements.

The Catholic school principal, in the audience, at the 36 minute mark, was about to state the criteria for admission of students and he did not get the opportunity to fully state, the criteria by which they accept students, in cases where there are limited places.

He should have been allowed to fully state what he was about to say, but he was interrupted just as he was about to explain the first of the considerations that are taken into account - siblings.

He didn't get a chance to explain other factors, regarding criteria for acceptance of places, but I guess that he was about to explain that the acceptance of places is not based on whether or not a child is following the Catholic religion, because he said that they have had to turn away both Catholic, and non Catholic pupils.

Claire Byrne seemed more concerned with trying to simplistically suggest that his school might not accept pupils of parents who have chosen not to raise their children with a Catholic religion ethos.

Susie Hall of the Church of Ireland Board of Education was making a very valid point about the problem being insufficient places rather than religion being the issue, and then when she was about to discuss the issue of schools admission policies at the 27 minute mark, she did not get a chance to finish her statement.

Why do programme makers ask people, with an interest in an issue being debated, to come to a show, to be a member of the audience and address an issue being discussed, and then not let them finish the points they are making?

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-30003252/10689846/

Later while Maria Steen of The Iona Institute was replying to a comment, she was interrupted so that the details of the poll could be read out.

I don't much like the way vox pops are used in live TV and radio programme debates. They interrupt whatever debate is taking place and often the poll questions are framed in such a way as to engineer a particular result, rather than considering a wide range of issues in a debate.

For example on the show tonight the poll question was: "Should schools be permitted to take religion into consideration when enrolling new pupils?".

Why wasn't the poll question: "Should the Department of Education facilitate the provision of more schools that do not have a particular religious ethos?"

A lady in the audience named Derval, at the 40 minute mark, stated "I enrolled my child on a waiting list for Educate Together, when she was a few weeks old. We never got a place just because our name never got to the top of the list". She also said that her child did not get enrolled into other local schools and that one school would accept her child as long as her child did not request, to not be taught religion and that they could show that they lived in the area served by the school.

Why weren't the representatives of Educate Together, on the show, asked what the criteria is, for acceptance of places at Educate Together schools, considering this lady enrolled her child so far in advance? I think it is fair to ask that question, considering it is a question being asked of schools with a religious ethos.

Norma Sheahan said at the 20 minute mark, that the Educate Together school her children attend, has an admission policy of "first come, first served, my particular one". Is that a policy of all Educate Together schools? This question was not asked of the representatives of Educate Together.

This is the ESRI report to which Maria Steen referred. It is titled School Sector Variation among Primary Schools in Ireland, by Merike Darmody, Emer Smyth and Selina McCoy (ESRI), published jointly by the ESRI and Educate Together.

https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT221.pdf

https://www.esri.ie/publications/school-sector-variation-among-primary-schools-in-ireland/

https://www.esri.ie/news/new-report-on-diversity-in-primary-schools-in-ireland/

It supports the point Maria Steen made on the show, in her exchange with Paul Rowe of Educate Together, regarding the attendance of pupils from the Travelling community, being larger in number, in Catholic schools.

When she made this point with reference to the findings of the report, she received criticism from Paul Rowe, at the 25 minute mark - even though the issue is addressed in the report. She said "that is from your report" and he replied "No, it is not" and added that what she was saying was "absolutely untrue".

Maria Steen is clearly correct in this instance.

It also supports another point she made, at the 23 minute mark, about the backgrounds of students that attend different types of schools.

The press statement includes the following text:

"The report also shows how the three primary school sectors differed in terms of social class background and maternal education levels:
Minority faith and multi-denominational schools had higher proportions of children from professional, managerial and technical backgrounds than Catholic schools".

Paul Rowe said that what Maria Steen said was "palpably not true", but she quoted a 2012 report which was endorsed by him.

I think, perhaps, she made these points, because, in the press statement that accompanied this report, Paul Rowe's contact details are included, for anyone seeking further information. The press statement also includes a quote from him, about the report, which strongly suggests that he endorses all the points made in the report. I think she made these points to question how schools, with a non religious ethos, accept places in cases where there is limited space.

Paul Rowe said that the number of applications to Educate Together schools far exceeds the number of places. He said there are 12,000 applications which cannot be met. He didn't detail the criteria for accepting places in Educate Together schools that have limited places, which is the question being asked of schools with a religious ethos.

It is fair to ask what criteria non religious schools use, for example Educate Together schools, for acceptance of places, in cases of limited space, but this wasn't really explored in the discussion, even though the issue of there not being enough Educate Together schools in operation, to accommodate the demand, was highlighted.

Paul Rowe is quoted in the press release:
"Paul Rowe, Educate Together CEO, noted:
“This report provides an important objective background to the current debate around school patronage. In particular it demonstrates that many Catholic families choose Educate Together schools, and that they and their children are happy with the experience.”

It is stated in the report, on page 5 of the Executive Summary, under the heading: Ethnic Minority and Migrant Background, that:

"Children attending multi-denominational schools were more likely to come from immigrant backgrounds than those in minority faith or Catholic schools. Compared to other schools, multi-denominational schools were least likely to have representatives of just one national group among the student body. The widest spread of nationalities was evident in Catholic schools. The number of pupils from the Traveller Community was relatively small across the three types of primary schools. Compared to the other two school sectors, multi-denominational schools were least likely to have pupils from the Traveller Community among their student intake".

It also states, on page 41, under the heading Traveller Pupils, that:

"As a next step, we focussed our analysis on Traveller pupils in all primary schools (see Figure 5). The results showed that the proportion of such pupils in the primary schools was relatively small (74% of all schools did not have any Traveller pupils). Most multi-denominational schools did not have any Traveller pupils. Catholic schools were more likely to have greater numbers of Traveller pupils compared to minority faith schools. A significant association was found between DEIS status and the proportion of Traveller pupils in the school (p<.000). Disadvantaged schools were more likely to have a higher proportion (3%+) of Travellers compared to non-DEIS schools (32% and 11% respectively). The numbers of Traveller pupils attending Gaelscoileanna were modest – 91 per cent of these schools reported having no Travellers among their pupil population (p<.006)".

AnneFrank

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Fcuk thought there would be a discussion on schools but the beautiful Maria Steen put paid to that. Brains with a religious outlook buries all bull**** gombeens. Maria go into politics you'd walk it.

When i first saw Maria Steen on the Brendan O'Connor show i was so impressed with her, i'm not religious at all, but like last night, she was attacked from all angles for simply having an opinion which she is perfectly entitled to have.
In this new social media age, if you do not agree with the mass's you are bullied which is ironic.For examples, look at people who didn't agree with the gay marriage referendum, or Donald Trump supporters, attacked and called homophobes or racists or sexists.
What happened to good old debate.
Maria Steen, what a woman, and my god is she beautiful too to boot

NIMAN

Agree about Maria Steen.

Again I do not agree with a lot of her opinions, but she is certainly a good talker and can argue a point against the best. That Norma one was way out of her depth against her.

NIMAN

AnneFrank wrote: »

In this new social media age, if you do not agree with the mass's you are bullied which is ironic

Which is one of the reasons why things like Brexit, Trump etc shouldn't come as a shock.

People hold certain views but keep them to themselves. Look how much the pollsters have been wrong with Brexit and Trump, its because people went with the flow and said "yeah I'd never vote Trump", and then vote for him once they were in the safety of the polling booth.

The new SJWs support freedom of choice, as long as you choose the same as them.

horseburger

AnneFrank wrote: »

When i first saw Maria Steen on the Brendan O'Connor show i was so impressed with her, i'm not religious at all, but like last night, she was attacked from all angles for simply having an opinion which she is perfectly entitled to have.
In this new social media age, if you do not agree with the mass's you are bullied which is ironic.For examples, look at people who didn't agree with the gay marriage referendum, or Donald Trump supporters, attacked and called homophobes or racists or sexists.
What happened to good old debate.
Maria Steen, what a woman, and my god is she beautiful too to boot

During the discussion, a comparison was not made, between schools with a religious and those with non religious ethos, on the issue of the considerations or requirements, for acceptance of places, in situations where there are not enough places to accommodate all the people who are applying.

Can both religious and non religious run schools have, as a first priority, an acceptance of students in the local area, in situations where there is limited space? Are all Educate Together schools first come, first serve basis, as stated by Norma Sheahan, with regard to the school attended by her children?

Do all Catholic and Church of Ireland schools have as a first priority, in cases where the number of applications exceeds the space and staff available, that the pupils enrolled are following the respective religion?

It sounds to me that it is only when there are limited places in schools, that are under religious patronage, that the policy of accepting students of the particular religion, is prioritised.

If so, it is going to be disheartening for the parents of the children who do not get through the enrolment process, but the programme didn't discuss the enrolment policies of non religious schools.

I wonder, in cases where demand exceeds the space available in the school, is it easier for schools, that are of religious patronage, to prioritise accepting students that follow the particular religious ethos of the school, rather than having to consider other factors, like proximity to the school.

If factors, other than the religion observed by the children, were used as the deciding reasons for acceptance of students, could the school be accused of being even more discriminatory in their enrolment policies, if a child does not get through the enrolment process?

I'm thinking, that if proximity to a religious school was the 1st priority, and if it resulted in less pupils following the school's particular religious ethos, the ethos of the school would be undermined, and that would result in discrimination against the parents of children who wish their child to be taught with that religious ethos.

I'm also thinking, that if proximity is used as a first priority, for schools with a religious ethos, you might have situations where children in a general area - who live near each other - might not all get through the enrolment process for their local school. For example, you might have one family whose child got a place, and the other family whose child didn't get a place, might be wondering what it was that resulted in the school not accepting their application. If proximity to the school, was used as a first priority, might it lead to resentment between families in communities?

Might it just be easier, in this scenario, for the school with a religious ethos, to have, as a first priority in enrolment, children of parents who are following the particular religion?

Is there an issue regarding insurance, or public liability insurance, in schools with a religious ethos, if a child that is not being brought up with a religious outlook, leaves a classroom, at his or her request, or at the request of the child's parents, and is sitting on their own in another room, or in another classroom, while religion is being taught to the students in his or her class group?

Is there a responsibility then, of the school to make sure that children, who attend schools with a religious ethos, but who do not want to be taught religion, are supervised, by another teacher, or perhaps by a classroom assistant or perhaps a member of the school board of management, if the student, or the student's parents, request to be able to leave the classroom, while religion is being taught?

Maria Steen suggested at the 21 minute mark, that rather than religious identity being a condition, that it is more likely that criteria used - I am guessing she means of schools in general, religious and non religious - would take into consideration address codes, post codes or whether or not the student would already have brothers or sisters, already in attendance at the particular schools.

http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-30003252/10689846/

If this issue had been asked of Paul Rowe of Educate Together, it may well have been shown, that different schools, with religious or non religious ethos, do not differ that much in their enrolment policies in situations where the numbers enrolling, exceed the places available in the schools?

southstar

AnneFrank wrote: »

When i first saw Maria Steen on the Brendan O'Connor show i was so impressed with her, i'm not religious at all, but like last night, she was attacked from all angles for simply having an opinion which she is perfectly entitled to have.
In this new social media age, if you do not agree with the mass's you are bullied which is ironic.For examples, look at people who didn't agree with the gay marriage referendum, or Donald Trump supporters, attacked and called homophobes or racists or sexists.
What happened to good old debate.
Maria Steen, what a woman, and my god is she beautiful too to boot

Give me strength ...if I hear that hackneyed old line again... "attacked for having an opinion"....was her character impugned in some way.. was she physically or verbally assaulted...no what happened was that other people expressed(many from direct experience of the issue)a different opinion.So who is closing down the debate here?? You perhaps.?Yes Maris Steen certainly did give it her best having being prevented on a couple of occasions from trying to hog the debate by speaking over people.
"What happened to good old debate" ...another glib overused and seemingly harmless example of rhetoric.However a liitle more sinister perhaps given the political climate were in.This is the Trump style...accuse the other side of the debate of trying to close said debate,muzzle the press, invent an enemy,create a moral panic,shout out more glib phrases like" its PC gone mad", ..blah blah. This is a con trick that needs to be challenged at every turn.

horseburger

southstar wrote: »

Give me strength ...if I hear that hackneyed old line again... "attacked for having an opinion"....was her character impugned in some way.. was she physically or verbally assaulted...no what happened was that other people expressed(many from direct experience of the issue)a different opinion.So who is closing down the debate here?? You perhaps.?Yes Maris Steen certainly did give it her best having being prevented on a couple of occasions from trying to hog the debate by speaking over people.
"What happened to good old debate" ...another glib overused and seemingly harmless example of rhetoric.However a liitle more sinister perhaps given the political climate were in.This is the Trump style...accuse the other side of the debate of trying to close said debate,muzzle the press, invent an enemy,create a moral panic,shout out more glib phrases like" its PC gone mad", ..blah blah. This is a con trick that needs to be challenged at every turn.

In fairness, Maria Steen was interrupted, on a number of occasions, during the discussion.

She was interrupted by Norma Sheahan. a few minutes into the discussion. This was when Claire Byrne first addressed Maria Steen, with a question about the issue of parents, who do not follow any religion, baptising their children, just to ensure that their child secures a place in a local school that has a religious ethos.

This was after the discussion started, with Norma Sheahan speaking uninterrupted.

Another example where Maria Steen was interrupted was when she made reference to the 2012 ESRI Educate Together joint report titled School Sector Variation Among Primary Schools in Ireland. https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT221.pdf

Paul Rowe of Educate Together interjected from the audience, stating that what she had said about the report was untrue. He said that what she said about the report was “palpably not true” and “absolutely untrue”.

The details in the report, indicate that she accurately referenced the findings in the report, and that she was correct in saying that the report was endorsed by Educate Together.

Why would Paul Rowe dispute what she said on the show, about this report, considering he endorsed the findings of the report, by way of a quote in a press release, that accompanied the publication of the report.

https://www.esri.ie/pubs/BKMNEXT221.pdf

https://www.esri.ie/news/new-report-on-diversity-in-primary-schools-in-ireland/

https://www.esri.ie/publications/school-sector-variation-among-primary-schools-in-ireland/

I think the discussion would have been better if a detailed comparison was made between the enrolment policies of different types of schools, in schools with a religious patronage, and schools that do not have a religious patronage, and a comparison between the priorities that different schools use, in their enrolment process and policy. If proximity to the school is a priority, in cases where there are limited places in that school, how does a school decide which family to accept, if both families live pretty much equal distance from the school?

The only thing that was referenced, on the issue of enrolment, was that; many schools, both religious and non religious, are over-subscribed, and cannot accept all the applications made to the schools, and that Paul Rowe stated there are 12,000 applications to Educate Together schools, that cannot be processed due to lack of places.

What criteria, and order of priorities in enrolment, are used by schools which do not have a religious ethos? That wasn’t discussed on the show.

I ask that because I wonder, in cases where there are limited places, is it just as awkward for the schools with a religious ethos and those with no religious ethos, to have to accept places on the basis of whether or not the family lives locally, or if the family lives within, or just outside the catchment area of the school – as it might for a Catholic or Church of Ireland school to have to choose between two children, from families that live equal distance from a school, where one family follows a religious belief, and the other family doesn't follow a religious belief?

One of the families loses out, in either scenario, whether the child’s application is accepted on the basis of religious belief, or, on the basis of whether or not the family lives locally in the area, served by the school.

RabbleRouser2k

The entire episode represented a clear bias on Byrne's part-it's all the more infuriating considering how a decent debate was and is needed.

AnneFrank

southstar wrote: »

Give me strength ...if I hear that hackneyed old line again... "attacked for having an opinion"....was her character impugned in some way.. was she physically or verbally assaulted...no what happened was that other people expressed(many from direct experience of the issue)a different opinion.So who is closing down the debate here?? You perhaps.?Yes Maris Steen certainly did give it her best having being prevented on a couple of occasions from trying to hog the debate by speaking over people.
"What happened to good old debate" ...another glib overused and seemingly harmless example of rhetoric.However a liitle more sinister perhaps given the political climate were in.This is the Trump style...accuse the other side of the debate of trying to close said debate,muzzle the press, invent an enemy,create a moral panic,shout out more glib phrases like" its PC gone mad", ..blah blah. This is a con trick that needs to be challenged at every turn.

touched a nerve ? "give me strength" is a rather glib hackneyed old line,
also annoying is the misspelling of Maria Steen, little,extraordinaire, were in, instead of we're in, or missquoting people, but hey, you keep challenging, it's amusing.

Galwayguy35

There was a lot of people in the audience last night who think the country and the taxpayer owes them a living, I've no problem with carers and people on disability getting an increase because they deserve it but it's a bit hard to take hearing a young single fella cribbing about the 5 euro increase not being enough for him.

Of course there had to be someone from AAA/PBP on as well talking through their hoop as usual.

southstar

AnneFrank wrote: »

touched a nerve ? "give me strength" is a rather glib hackneyed old line,
also annoying is the misspelling of Maria Steen, little,extraordinaire, were in, instead of we're in, or missquoting people, but hey, you keep challenging, it's amusing.

Well that's fairly desperate and a liitle pathetic...but if its the best you've got ..beats running to a corner and stamping your feet.