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

Uncharted · 12-11-2018 02:56PM

Cackling Kelly is a simply atrocious host.

She is vitriolic against anyone who doesn't agree with her,she's completely incapable of holding a reasoned debate.

Complete and utter tantrum throwing by a jumped up "media celeb".

Kamili · 12-11-2018 02:58PM

Schnooks wrote: »

Now that was funny. She wasn't able to force her opinion on that barrister and kept using a sarcastic tone and trying to talk over him. He called her out on her inaccurate statements and made her look a bit stupid, cue outrage and shouting from Kelly.

Seriously unprofessional, acting like a petulant child. Of course no texts were read out after, but she did have to mention that "many" were supportive of herself of course :-)

I find her that way most of the time TBH - unprofessional and ill informed. I find her shows difficult to listen to and usually turn the radio off.
think I will not be tuning in again either.

meeeeh · 12-11-2018 03:01PM

So have many here think lacy thong means woman wants to have sex? I can't understand how to type of underwear is relevant (unless there is some physical evidence on it). But maybe it's my silly female brain and I should stop wearing thogs to avoid panty lines because that means I want to have sex with any randomer.

Schnooks · 12-11-2018 03:03PM

Kamili wrote: »

I find her that way most of the time TBH - unprofessional and ill informed. I find her shows difficult to listen to and usually turn the radio off.
think I will not be tuning in again either.

I rarely listen myself, definitely not a fan of her's. But I just knew when I heard that this item was coming up, that Kelly would go ballistic if she couldn't stamp her authority on the interview and make her opinion the only acceptable one, and it would be great entertainment. And so it was.

Don't know anyone who likes her, and that includes most females that I know.

meeeeh · 12-11-2018 03:04PM

nullzero wrote: »

In my eyes women are equal, and deserve to be judged on merit. Do you feel that makes me an idiot?

You didn't say that. You did not reply on the subject You went on a rant about white men hating and similar.

Kamili · 12-11-2018 03:05PM

Schnooks wrote: »

I rarely listen myself, definitely not a fan of her's. But I just knew when I heard that this item was coming up, that Kelly would go ballistic if she couldn't stamp her authority on the interview and make her opinion the only acceptable one, and it would be great entertainment. And so it was.

Don't know anyone who likes her, and that includes most females that I know.

I'm female too and can't stand her either. I don't know why newstalk put her in that slot and kept her there for so long.

nullzero · 12-11-2018 03:16PM

meeeeh wrote: »

You didn't say that. You did not reply on the subject You went on a rant about white men hating and similar.

I said that in both posts, if you care to read them.
I was taking issue with your assertion that mentioning feminism etc automatically makes somebody an idiot.

nullzero · 12-11-2018 03:21PM

meeeeh wrote: »

So have many here think lacy thong means woman wants to have sex? I can't understand how to type of underwear is relevant (unless there is some physical evidence on it). But maybe it's my silly female brain and I should stop wearing thogs to avoid panty lines because that means I want to have sex with any randomer.

Nobody believes that for a second. The defence will try to use anything to win a court case and they had a right (albeit tenuous) to present that evidence.
Comments like yours paint a picture of a world in which men feel entitled to rape a woman based on her choice of underwear which is insanely wide of the mark.
By your standards you should wear different underpants because men can't stop themselves from raping women, which is preposterous.

southstar · 12-11-2018 03:28PM

ButtersSuki wrote: »

And again post part of what I said to dissolve and dilute the context.

By way of example, if one reads a report of an interview in a paper but one didn't actually hear the interview, can one not comment on said interview? You seem to suggest as much above in bold, but when I do that (as highlighted in red below, which is just one instance of when I've said such a thing BTW) and comment it's apparently not acceptable. Funny that. Double standards?

And - as you very well know - after you cried about me not listening to the item in question many moons ago I took the time to listen back to the whole show in question and then comment again having listened fully to the item in question. But even then that wasn't enough.

Re. "nasty digs"....you're the one who resorts to personal comments all the time. You have called me "cowardly" (ironic really when you refuse to answer many questions) and in the last couple of days called those who dared to criticise Ciara "bitter little men" - aimed specifically at me as it was a quoted reply to a post of mine, but also to many of the male contributors to this thread. Rather ironic again. And this considering you've repeatedly said you're ignoring me and not replying to me anymore! At least we can take you at your word on that.

You appear to have a number of MO's when it comes to being faced with a question you don't like:
Resort to personal comments (which you have frequently done)

Attempt to deflect or avoid the question completely with some sort of "I don't have an opinion on it because I didn't hear it" type comment, which you're now attempting to row back from by adding in "unless I've read about" which is fine for you but no others - "equality" :rolleyes:

Throw out a "I'm putting you on ignore" OR "I'm not responding to you anymore" type comment as a way of avoiding the question, which you don't actually stick to

use the deliberately misquote or partially quote tactic to misrepresent a point I've made

Not an exhaustive list btw.

I could give more examples, but I'm off to walk my dogs. I use this time to listen to podcasts mainly, but who knows, I may listen back to one of Ciara's shows today. Genuine question: is there any show in particular from the past week I should listen to/any you'd recommend? I'm asking as I'm always willing to give anyone a chance to change my opinion of them.

I hope the dogs like Ciara Kelly..

CatFromHue · 12-11-2018 03:43PM

meeeeh wrote: »

So have many here think lacy thong means woman wants to have sex? I can't understand how to type of underwear is relevant (unless there is some physical evidence on it). But maybe it's my silly female brain and I should stop wearing thogs to avoid panty lines because that means I want to have sex with any randomer.

I only heard a bit of the segment and the barrister was right that the quote is out of context.

I've just done a quick search of this story and only come up with articles giving out about the thong being used as a defense but can't find a full list of the defense case.

If it was just a defense of "look at what she's wearing" it's an out and out disgrace.

It could be a defense case of a number of things which finished with "also look at her underwear". With her underwear being an also ran to the other defense points.

meeeeh · 12-11-2018 03:56PM

nullzero wrote: »

Nobody believes that for a second. The defence will try to use anything to win a court case and they had a right (albeit tenuous) to present that evidence.

And if he claimed that they will use any means to win the case or influence the jury then I would say fair enough. He claimed it was evidence

bloodless_coup · 12-11-2018 04:15PM

Listened to the podcast, she got awful hysterical.

What's the problem with showing underwear anyway, it paints a picture.

Dick Swiveller · 12-11-2018 04:33PM

Just listened back to the interview with the Solicitor. She really is an imbecile. She's talking to a Defence Barrister and says (I'm paraphrasing) "I read a barrister from England on twitter who said it wouldn't happen here." Jesus ****ing Christ is she for real? Twitter?? Who is this barrister? Does she have any sense of journalistic ethics at all? The problem with her and all the people outraged by this case is they have no idea what they're talking about. Typical outrage bandwagon. She clearly doesn't understand how evidence works in a trial. As the Solicitor patiently explained, there is a context to the evidence shown in a trial. Is it social media and the endless flow of information that is making people think they are experts in every field? We saw the same thing during the Paddy Jackson trial where millennials on twitter were criticising experienced barristers for cross examining the complainant about blood on her underwear. God help me!!

Anyway, I'm off to bang my head against the wall for an hour after listening to that drivel.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 04:40PM

meeeeh wrote: »

So have many here think lacy thong means woman wants to have sex? I can't understand how to type of underwear is relevant (unless there is some physical evidence on it). But maybe it's my silly female brain and I should stop wearing thogs to avoid panty lines because that means I want to have sex with any randomer.

Totally agree. Some wear thongs all the time & some for special occasions. It shouldn't make a difference between thong or granny knickers I honestly thought we'd gotten away from "if she wore a short skirt then she was asking for it".

nullzero · 12-11-2018 04:51PM

meeeeh wrote: »

And if he claimed that they will use any means to win the case or influence the jury then I would say fair enough. He claimed it was evidence

The underwear was part of the physical evidence recovered by the Gardai.

nullzero · 12-11-2018 04:53PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Totally agree. Some wear thongs all the time & some for special occasions. It shouldn't make a difference between thong or granny knickers I honestly thought we'd gotten away from "if she wore a short skirt then she was asking for it".

Do you really believe men are going to rape women because they're wearing short skirts or lacy knickers?
You must have a very low opinion of men.

Dick Swiveller · 12-11-2018 04:53PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Totally agree. Some wear thongs all the time & some for special occasions. It shouldn't make a difference between thong or granny knickers I honestly thought we'd gotten away from "if she wore a short skirt then she was asking for it".

Sigh.... Did you listen to the interview?

meeeeh · 12-11-2018 04:59PM

Stoolcup wrote: »

Sigh.... Did you listen to the interview?

Did you? The barrister in a trial claimed lacy thongs indicate the accuser was open to having sex. That is what a debate was about.

Dick Swiveller · 12-11-2018 05:12PM

meeeeh wrote: »

Did you? The barrister in a trial claimed lacy thongs indicate the accuser was open to having sex. That is what a debate was about.

It was one of the pieces of evidence in a trial that went on for weeks. You have to look at it in context. It's not as simple as: He showed the thong and said it was her fault. It was a tiny part of a mountain of evidence that was used. A jury won't be basing their decision entirely on her underwear.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 05:22PM

nullzero wrote:

Do you really believe men are going to rape women because they're wearing short skirts or lacy knickers? You must have a very low opinion of men.

No. I believe that some on the jury will see a thong as an invitation to sex. "why else would she wear a thong if she didn't have sex?" is the attitude of some. It's possible that there is an idiot like that on the jury of any rape case. Showing granny pants and showing a thong will have totally different effects on some jury members. A good defence barrister will only want to show the jury a thong. If they were granny pants then not in a million years would he want to remind the jury of this

nullzero · 12-11-2018 05:37PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

No. I believe that some on the jury will see a thong as an invitation to sex. "why else would she wear a thong if she didn't have sex?" is the attitude of some. It's possible that there is an idiot like that on the jury of any rape case. Showing granny pants and showing a thong will have totally different effects on some jury members. A good defence barrister will only want to show the jury a thong. If they were granny pants then not in a million years would he want to remind the jury of this

I think this post says more about your mentality than that of the jurors.
No sane person would believe what you outlined.

Grolschevik · 12-11-2018 05:48PM

doylefe wrote: »

What's the problem with showing underwear anyway, it paints a picture.

A picture of what?

meeeeh · 12-11-2018 05:49PM

nullzero wrote: »

I think this post says more about your mentality than that of the jurors.
No sane person would believe what you outlined.

But that was exactly the reason the underwear was mentioned. The type of underwear was completely irrelevant otherwise. I remember couple of decades ago (I think it was in nineties)Italian court decided a woman couldn't be raped because she was wearing jeans they could only be removed if she was willing to go with it.

nullzero · 12-11-2018 06:03PM

meeeeh wrote: »

But that was exactly the reason the underwear was mentioned. The type of underwear was completely irrelevant otherwise. I remember couple of decades ago (I think it was in nineties)Italian court decided a woman couldn't be raped because she was wearing jeans they could only be removed if she was willing to go with it.

The defence were reaching, the underwear was already part of the evidence of the case.
No intelligent person would take the notion of the type of underwear being relevant seriously.
I'm not siren what you're upset about.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 06:04PM

nullzero wrote:

I think this post says more about your mentality than that of the jurors. No sane person would believe what you outlined.

So you honestly think if a victim was wearing granny pants the defense barrister would want to show the jury?

Honestly?

A picture paints a thousand words. To a holy Joe a thong means one thing

nullzero · 12-11-2018 06:09PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

So you honestly think if a victim was wearing granny pants the defense barrister would want to show the jury?

Honestly?

A picture paints a thousand words. To a holy Joe a thong means one thing

A holy Joe?
That's your argument?

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 06:30PM

nullzero wrote:

A holy Joe? That's your argument?

Not at all. My argument is that the barrister will only want the jury to see a thong and not greying granny pants. The reason for this is that the visual is thong =sexy or dressed for sex. Bridget Jones knickers = not expecting sex.

Barristers use every trick in the book to convince a jury. Conscious & subconscious. Prosecuter will want to show the granny pants and try hide the thong. Defence barrister will try do the complete opposite. It's what they do. They want to paint a particular picture the jury's heads.

Sleeper12 wrote:

So you honestly think if a victim was wearing granny pants the defense barrister would want to show the jury?

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 06:55PM

nullzero wrote:

A holy Joe? That's your argument?

That's what you took from my post?

Do you wear the exact same type of clothes 7 days a week? Clothes worn to work portray a particular image. Companies wouldn't spend millions on uniforms otherwise. Would you be more likely take financial advice from a financial advisor wearing shorts & a Hawaiin shirt? Or a financial adviser in a suit?

Clothing portrays a particular image. Before you even speak to someone for the first time you subconsciously form an opinion based on hairstyle and clothing. This is fact.

Barristers use every tool at their disposal. Defence barrister will want to show a thong but would prefer to hide Bridget Jones knickers from a jury. The prosecution will want the opposite. They will try hide the thong but will stretch the granny knickers as big as possible while showing the jury. It's their job to paint a particular picture.

12-11-2018 07:22PM

I’ve just listened to Ciara Kelly segment today . Is there something wrong with her ? Her own personal feelings and her emotions are hugely to the fore in all of these interviews. She was barely in control of her temper today ! “Are you listening to me” she’s beginning to sound like Ryan Tubridy “you will know if I lose control “ comment last week .

Whatever the subject and whatever my own feelings on them I think Ciara Kelly needs to be seriously reigned in by Newstalk. She does NOT speak for me as a woman . She challenged a defense lawyer today on the process of the judicial system and the unanimous verdict of a jury . She targeted the solicitor as if this was his case and his decision. It got hugely personal.

Is Ciara Kelly going through a horrendous menopause ? Because lately she is far from unbiased, she is far from tempered and she is constantly on the edge of her emotions. Her interview techniques are appalling.

Sleeper12 · 12-11-2018 07:24PM

Something strange going on with boards.ie today. My last two posts took 30 minutes to show up.