Sean O'Rourke Today Show

12-11-2019 06:21PM

Paddy provides a view on an ehhhhh "lifestyle" that not everybody gets to see.

It's like reading the court reports in my local paper but Paddy gives it a bit of colour with the characters being interviewed.

Nevin Parsnipp · 12-11-2019 06:23PM

KaneToad wrote: »

I remember when Paddy had a weekly half hour slot all to himself on RTE. I think it was called Queuing for a Living, (which was also the name of his book). It was the same format as his snippets on the SOR show. It was great radio.

Yes ...should bring that format back...but too much on the Courts scene...would probably provoke a taxpayer revolt...so it won't happen. !

PS like the username ...lots of your relatives down Queensland way !

Brendan Bendar · 12-11-2019 08:56PM

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Paddy provides a view on an ehhhhh "lifestyle" that not everybody gets to see.

It's like reading the court reports in my local paper but Paddy gives it a bit of colour with the characters being interviewed.

They are putting their hands in the taxpayers pockets, I wouldn’t really call them ‘ characters’.. tossers or wasters perhaps.

sligojoek · 12-11-2019 09:04PM

I think there was a TV show as well "Paddy's People" or something.

tayto lover · 12-11-2019 09:05PM

KaneToad wrote: »

Ridiculous stuff from O'Callaghan. Saying that Lisa Smith shouldn't be incarcerated because she has a 2 year old child. Such nonsense. It's also an argument she'd never make about a man with a 2 year old child.

I stopped listening to this show when this moany voiced and biased presenter took over. Can’t stand Precious O’ Callaghan.

jelutong · 12-11-2019 09:14PM

If Miriam takes over from SOR I’ll migrate to Newstalk full time.

HeidiHeidi · 12-11-2019 09:15PM

jelutong wrote: »

If Miriam takes over from SOR I’ll migrate to Newstalk full time.

+1

robo · 12-11-2019 09:23PM

I still think that they won't have one person just replace Sean, it will be a few people and they'll name the show a generic name with no particular presenter steering it - possibly 3-4, including Claire Byrne, Cormac O'Hara, Miriam (maybe), Katie Hannon and maybe one from Morning Ireland like Audrey Carville

HeidiHeidi · 12-11-2019 09:26PM

It's always been a flagship show with one main presenter in that slot though, and it's up against the Pat Kenny show, so I'd say they'll find a main high profile presenter.

Spanish Eyes · 12-11-2019 09:29PM

robo wrote: »

I still think that they won't have one person just replace Sean, it will be a few people and they'll name the show a generic name with no particular presenter steering it - possibly 3-4, including Claire Byrne, Cormac O'Hara, Miriam (maybe), Katie Hannon and maybe one from Morning Ireland like Audrey Carville

Terrified of new blood they are now. Closed shop.

At least Audrey Carville had a good stint on the BBC. How many others that you mention did?

jippo nolan · 12-11-2019 10:09PM

HeidiHeidi wrote: »

+1

+2

BarryD2 · 18-11-2019 11:32AM

Whatever about the bould prince and his memory, Anton Savage reminds me of everything that is wrong about the likes of The Communications Clinic. It's not what the truth is, it's all about how you prepare and present your lies.

serfboard · 18-11-2019 01:33PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

It's not what the truth is, it's all about how you prepare and present your lies.

You'd have to be a bit naive if you thought that PR agencies were purveyors of truth.

BarryD2 · 18-11-2019 02:54PM

serfboard wrote: »

You'd have to be a bit naive if you thought that PR agencies were purveyors of truth.

I'm perfectly aware of the nature of PR agencies - just hearing them continuously reinforces my view..

elperello · 18-11-2019 06:53PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

I'm perfectly aware of the nature of PR agencies - just hearing them continuously reinforces my view..

So much of what we hear on the radio is the carefully crafted work of the PR agencies.
Only our vigilance can protect us.

BarryD2 · 19-11-2019 10:22AM

Might just have to start switching off RTE Radio for the next several weeks as I hear the Christmas begging ads for the likes of Trocaire and Focus have started up in earnest and we're only half way though November

I like to give a few bob to a charity of choice at year end but I don't want to be beaten about the head every 10 mins by these radio ads. In fact I deliberately avoid donating to charities that engage in this emotional blackmail.

19-11-2019 10:28AM

BarryD2 wrote: »

Might just have to start switching off RTE Radio for the next several weeks as I hear the Christmas begging ads for the likes of Trocaire and Focus have started up in earnest and we're only half way though November

I like to give a few bob to a charity of choice at year end but I don't want to be beaten about the head every 10 mins by these radio ads. In fact I deliberately avoid donating to charities that engage in this emotional blackmail.

Wonder how they get on the rest of the year? I agree with you,we don't need to be emotionally blackmailed into giving to charity,we all give something throughout the year!

Odyssey 2005 · 19-11-2019 10:59AM

O Rourke planting seeds for an increase in the licence fee.

Brendan Bendar · 19-11-2019 12:45PM

elperello wrote: »

So much of what we hear on the radio is the carefully crafted work of the PR agencies.
Only our vigilance can protect us.

Always check for the ‘vested interest’ is my strategy.

Dig deep enough and it usually becomes apparent.

elperello · 19-11-2019 07:29PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

Might just have to start switching off RTE Radio for the next several weeks as I hear the Christmas begging ads for the likes of Trocaire and Focus have started up in earnest and we're only half way though November

I like to give a few bob to a charity of choice at year end but I don't want to be beaten about the head every 10 mins by these radio ads. In fact I deliberately avoid donating to charities that engage in this emotional blackmail.

Just for a moment consider that those ads are not aimed at you.
You are generously giving to charities so you are not the target.
They are trying to reach those who do not donate.

generalgerry · 20-11-2019 10:15AM

So all vaccines are not safe then. What about the "emotional terrorists" that the ex HSE chief told us about?

Interesting to see if RTE extend their reporting to people who have suffered with issues from other vaccines or is that still taboo?

BarryD2 · 20-11-2019 10:22AM

elperello wrote: »

Just for a moment consider that those ads are not aimed at you.
You are generously giving to charities so you are not the target.
They are trying to reach those who do not donate.

They are counter productive after a while. You start to resent them, it's like the RSA ads that my kids just switch off..

generalgerry wrote: »

So all vaccines are not safe then. What about the "emotional terrorists" that the ex HSE chief told us about?

Interesting to see if RTE extend their reporting to people who have suffered with issues from other vaccines or is that still taboo?

Sean sounds a bit skeptical re the narcolepsy. She does come across very well.

Callan57 · 20-11-2019 10:23AM

Is narcolepsy the new whiplash?

plodder · 20-11-2019 10:30AM

generalgerry wrote: »

So all vaccines are not safe then. What about the "emotional terrorists" that the ex HSE chief told us about?

MMR is safe. I imagine that's what they were referring to.

Interesting to see if RTE extend their reporting to people who have suffered with issues from other vaccines or is that still taboo?

There's always going to be questions about new vaccines and it seems like they are justified for that swine flu jab. Though the manufacturer is still saying there's no proof of a causal link.

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/the-bmj-questions-transparency-of-information-surrounding-safety-of-pandemrix-swine-flu-vaccine/

blinding · 20-11-2019 01:14PM

Callan57 wrote: »

Is narcolepsy the new whiplash?

Ya could get whiplash from narcolepsy . If you thinking of a Bailey !

Ash.J.Williams · 20-11-2019 01:27PM

has gemmaroid jumped on the vaccine thing yet?

serfboard · 20-11-2019 02:24PM

plodder wrote: »

There's always going to be questions about new vaccines and it seems like they are justified for that swine flu jab. Though the manufacturer is still saying there's no proof of a causal link.

I don't get why the Department of Health gets sued in these cases anyway. The legal action should start and end with the manufacturer. It's not as if the Department of Health has made the drug.

An outbreak of (something) happens. The government asks drug manufacturers if they have a vaccine. A manufacturer comes along with a vaccine, that they declare is safe and that has been passed by the EMA, the government buys it and supplies it to the populace.

The manufacturer presumably has reassured the government that the vaccine is safe. The government should then say, right, any legal cases resulting from side-effects, you pay out.

I had started to post all this and then I went looking for more information. I found this:

The Irish Times wrote:

The vaccine was licensed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on June 20th, 2009 – just four months after the World Health Organisation declared a swine flu pandemic. At the time there was considerable fear about the potential for the new swine flu strain (H1N1) to cause serious illness and death. The process was much speedier than the normal assessment and licensing period for new vaccines.

In Europe one element of the accelerated process was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus. Another element, adopted by Ireland and other countries, including Canada, France and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine-related injury.

The Irish Times also asks a number of questions at the end of the article. Among them:

The Irish Times wrote:

Were [patients] given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed consent about taking the vaccine?

Is it reasonable and ethical to take shortcuts with the approval of medicines in the context of a global health emergency?

plodder · 20-11-2019 04:31PM

Is it reasonable and ethical to take shortcuts with the approval of medicines in the context of a global health emergency?

The WHO got it wrong big time on this occasion, but we didn't know that at the time. There was a lot of talk of a pandemic that could have killed millions. In future, they won't be as quick to approve them I guess.

serfboard · 20-11-2019 06:07PM

plodder wrote: »

The WHO got it wrong big time on this occasion, but we didn't know that at the time. There was a lot of talk of a pandemic that could have killed millions. In future, they won't be as quick to approve them I guess.

But will taking longer to approve the drug (to reduce the possibility of side-effects) result in thousands more deaths? This is the ethical dilemma.

In a future case, I can't see the outcome being any different than it was for Swine Flu. There may be too many lives at stake.

Marcusm · 22-11-2019 10:09PM

serfboard wrote: »

I don't get why the Department of Health gets sued in these cases anyway. The legal action should start and end with the manufacturer. It's not as if the Department of Health has made the drug.

An outbreak of (something) happens. The government asks drug manufacturers if they have a vaccine. A manufacturer comes along with a vaccine, that they declare is safe and that has been passed by the EMA, the government buys it and supplies it to the populace.

The manufacturer presumably has reassured the government that the vaccine is safe. The government should then say, right, any legal cases resulting from side-effects, you pay out.

I had started to post all this and then I went looking for more information. I found this:

The Irish Times also asks a number of questions at the end of the article. Among them:

The patient has no contract with the drug manufacturer. The Department does.

Sean O'Rourke Today Show

Comments