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

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I get that a lot of people don’t like Ciara but her intention yesterday was obvious - to find out what reasoning the legal profession have for using such a tactic.

Then she failed miserably in that intention and should have got someone with some legal knowledge on to challenge the barrister and applied said reason to challenge them.

Unfortunately Ciara came across as petulant from the outset of that interview and was clearly determined to force the conversation in her direction despite her obvious lack of legal knowledge and more importantly clearly lacking the reason or logic to discuss the topic rationally.

When it didn't go in her direction she lost the plot and by that I mean she actually lost control of herself and that was clear to anyone who was listening.

For a supposedly professional interviewer it was a complete car crash of an interview.

I wouldn't accept that kind of behaviour from my kids let alone another fully grown adult.

It's not the first time and as quite a few of us are saying on here, Ciara's lack of ability to conduct or facilitate reasoned debate is being shown up over and over again on this show.

Newstalk have already been sued because of it and as the liberals always end up eating themselves it's only a matter of time before she ends up being hoisted by her own petard

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^
Your opinion is not supported by evidence.

Newstalk are happy with Ciara's performance on Monday I suspect given that they immediately took a snip and are using bit to promote the show.

Just because you say things like 'car crash, 'unprofessional', 'fear of legal action' repeatedly us not evidence that any of it is true. And I say that recognizing Ciara did become passionate when speaking but it is clear that that we out of frustration, not a sign she was unprofessional.

Ask said yesterday, this is an emotive topic as indicates by Ruth Coppinger yesterday also.
The fact that both are being called unprofessional for their dismay at what happened in court is only further evidence that they have a point that women aren't being treated fairly in this respect.

You continue to confuse your opinion with fact.
Ciara Kelly's behaviour is demonstrable and plain to hear for anybody who listens to it.

None of us know what Newstalk's opinion on the issue is, but one thing is for sure is that Newstalk will always use soundbites of that nature for promotional purposes. Jonathan Healy was notorious for snarky soundbite baiting style, Newstalk used his soundbites for promos too, he no longer hosts the lunchtime slot.

As for your assertion that women "aren't being treated fairly", do you not agree that issues such as rape allegations should be subject to legal due process?

meeeeh wrote: »

There are a few posts by you and Nullzero that are littered with cliches describing women whenever they are passionate about something.

To get back on topic..

Ciara may have felt passionately about this issue but she lost control of her emotions while discussing it which is extremely unprofessional.

Why ?

Well because it makes for a terrible interview where nobody actually gains anything.

The interviewer gets to have a self indulgent rant while the interviewee isn't given the space to get their point across.

It quickly becomes pointless for anyone listening.

I honestly don't know why Ciara bothered to bring that barrister on the show.

I'm not a fan but if you want to hear how a professional conducts themselves during an interview have a listen to Pat.

He may get passionate from time to time but he never loses control of his emotions and can remain impartial when required.

Ciara can't manage either.

That's the difference between an amateur and a pro.

Deleted User wrote: »

But being the professional that Larissa Nolan is she has not let this colour her judgement of gender issues and she is not a raving femminazi doing nothing but harm to the women's movement.

There is a huge difference between having balanced debate on issues and Ciara Kelly's style of "interviewing".

I remember that being discussed here and listened back to it at the time.

(This thread must help Ciara's ratings to some extent :pac:)

It was an appalling piece of radio by any standards.

Can you imagine the sh1tstorm if that had been a man doing the "interviewing" :eek:

Larissa schooled Ciara that day on how to act professionally, impartially and with dignity and class.

The lesson, it seems, fell on deaf ears.

It's the only show that will make me turn off the radio

https://twitter.com/LunchtimeLiveNT/status/1062684620012052480

zell12 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/LunchtimeLiveNT/status/1062684620012052480

A couple of years ago, feminists waiving knickers would have been a parody...

Now it’s real..

And they have their own media platforms to scream at us from..

Scary..

Outside broadcast failure when interviewing Ruth Coppinger.
Have to cut to a commercial break

Just back from being banned for 24 hours for calling into question the professionalism of renowned media dahling Kelly.....

....what's the story with the double standards on the radio forum?

The lahvlahn thread is hopping daily with people aghast at the carry on of Joe Duffy.
He is regularly lambasted by boardsies,me included.

That's par for the course it seems but as soon as the good doctor is rightfully pulled up on her woeful attitude,the ban hammer is produced??

Why the double standard?

Rennaws wrote:

A couple of years ago, feminists waiving knickers would have been a parody...

Feminists? This has nothing to do with feminism. A teenage girl (a minor) had her knickers passed around the court. Not because they were torn. Not for DNA. Passed around to convince the jury that because she wore these particular pants that she wanted sex!

I understand if you don't like Ciara but it's important that posters don't belittle what actually went on in the court & continues to go on in court. There is a serious issue here & it's not feminists or feminism

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

You and a few other posters need to understand the difference between evidence and proof. The solicitor tried to explain it to Ciara the other day but she was busy shouting over him.

They were shown in court to portray an image of this young girl going out looking for sex. The colour, shape or size of her underwear should not be used to try prove that she wanted sex.



You might think it ok to treat young teenage girls or women this way in court but the majority don't. I believe this victim blaming/shaming will be outlawed shortly. I believe shortly the judge will be able to rule that the type of underwear can't be used. This is totally different to using them as evidence for DNA, rips etc. Another poster asked would it matter if she had a box of condoms in her purse with a receipt from only a few hours beforehand? Should this be passed around the court?


The thoughts that women have to ensure that they only get raped while wearing granny knickers is a little nuts imo.

Dick Swiveller wrote:

This is why social justice warriors (I dislike that term but can't think of a better one) are dangerous. There position is based purely on emotion and not reason. How can you outlaw victim blaming/shaming? What does that even mean? Who decides what is shaming and what isn't? Can the defence ever infer that a woman was consenting by utilising evidence that has been gathered? Or is it always shaming?

The judge could be allowed to rule that her choice of underwear has no bearing on the case.