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

The Weekend On One With Brendan O'Connor

generalgerry

Yep, that is what they are calling it apparently just heard it announced by the continuity announcer.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jay0109

plodder wrote: »

It's very odd. Everything he said up to that point was interesting and considered. So, he comes out with this clanger then, and doesn't know how to back out of it, or he meant it, but what did he really mean? We're none the wiser at the end of it.

I think what he was trying to say stemmed from the 230 prisoners getting out early. There was concern about prisoners getting CV19 in prison so a large amount were let out.
Some of them are now causing problems for the Gardai in the North Inner city and thereby putting Gardai at risk. And probably members of the public in that area.

Their human rights took precedence over the human rights of the genera populace. And I took him to mean that should not be the case.

Joe_ Public

jay0109 wrote: »

I think what he was trying to say stemmed from the 230 prisoners getting out early. There was concern about prisoners getting CV19 in prison so a large amount were let out.
Some of them are now causing problems for the Gardai in the North Inner city and thereby putting Gardai at risk. And probably members of the public in that area.

Their human rights took precedence over the human rights of the genera populace. And I took him to mean that should not be the case.

If thats what he meant, and I'm not necessarily disputing it, then it doesnt make much sense. He went on to say saving lives trumped human rights and thats what mattered. So if we assume the decision to release prisoners was taken on health grounds, as in the prison system couldnt cope in the present circumstances, then by his logic it was absolutely the right thing to do. Inconvenience to local population should be secondary. Basically, he was contradicting himself and unable to clarify his position despite numerous opportunities.

jay0109

I think, and again this is my interpretation, was that the human rights of those in prions should be suspended for the greater good.
The local law abiding population should come first.

But I could be giving him way too much credit

Joe_ Public

If that's the case, he would basically be saying, fck the health and safety of our prisons (and by extension, those who work in them as well). If the virus was to sweep through our overcrowded prisons, as officials feared, and claim a large number of lives, then too bad. But at least our regular law abiding citizens could sleep a tiny bit safer in their beds.

Whether he meant that, I'm doubtful, but that would seem the logic of the position to me.

fryup

listen again if you want to analyse it

Joe_ Public

Thanks, I've analysed it as much as i care to. I'm not clear as to what point he was making, or his logic behind it, but that could very easily be because I'm too thick to get it.

Brendan Bendar

Personally I think people are making way too much of it .

What I took out of what he said was more general, I and not really specific to the prisoner issue.

What he meant to convey, in my opinion, was that we should,in the current serious pandemic, be prepared to accept a little bit inconvenience, such as being stopped and queried about our journey for example, without getting all legal and pompous about it, and getting aggressive with the Garda involved.

Kinsella,in my opinion, jumped in like a bazooka as if the man had suggested that martial law should declared and a dictatorship set up with draconian penalties and laws to follow!

All the guy seemed to me to be suggesting was let’s make it as easy as we can for those fighting this pandemic to fight it and keep us all as safe as they can.

That’s what I take out of it anyway.

Joe_ Public

I'd agree with that mostly. Its no biggie at all. The other guy did jump in a bit lively so the original point never got developed and hard to say in what way it related to how it subsequently panned out. For me anyway.

Brendan Bendar

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I'd agree with that mostly. Its no biggie at all. The other guy did jump in a bit lively so the original point never got developed and hard to say in what way it related to how it subsequently panned out. For me anyway.

Agreed... Garda Review lad (who had a wee bit of a hectoring tone to his voice I felt, even before the ‘jump in) never had a chance really to develop his first point.

The whole thing spooled up to max power way too quickly, and to be honest didn’t reflect too well on both protagonists.

Bit of common sense wouldn’t have gone amiss.

Joe_ Public

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Agreed... Garda Review lad (who had a wee bit of a hectoring tone to his voice I felt, even before the ‘jump in) never had a chance really to develop his first point.

The whole thing spooled up to max power way too quickly, and to be honest didn’t reflect too well on both protagonists.

Bit of common sense wouldn’t have gone amiss.

Yeah, true that. There may well be a discussion to be had on prison releases but that wasnt it. Somehow i can see it resurfacing before too long.

serfboard

plodder wrote: »

Everything he said up to that point was interesting and considered.

Don't agree. I thought he came across like a tool even before Stephen Kinsella jumped in.

Brendan Bendar

serfboard wrote: »

Don't agree. I thought he came across like a tool even before Stephen Kinsella jumped in.

Yes he came across a bit hectoring,but in my opinion Kinsella lashed in way too hard.

ooter

he was given a chance to develop his point and state exactly what rights he was talking about and couldn't answer.

Brendan Bendar

ooter wrote: »

he was given a chance to develop his point and state exactly what rights he was talking about and couldn't answer.

He was shouted down by Kinsella and others, as he tried to develope his point.

The whole issue was badly handled by both protagonists.

Neither came out of it well.

People should have some manners and sense.

southstar

Stephen Kinsella couldn't wait to take the moral high ground and basically concoct a ****storm...hoping to make himself look good...what an utter phoney

Brendan Bendar

southstar wrote: »

Stephen Kinsella couldn't wait to take the moral high ground and basically concoct a ****storm...hoping to make himself look good...what an utter phoney

Good lad, saying it as it was.

Glad someone had the clunkers to say it.

plodder

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

He was shouted down by Kinsella and others, as he tried to develope his point.

The whole issue was badly handled by both protagonists.

Neither came out of it well.

People should have some manners and sense.

He wasn't shouted down. He had plenty of opportunity to clear up what he meant. For someone so close to law enforcement to say that "human rights should be parked" in the present climate, it's no wonder someone jumped on it. The other panelists were equally mystified, if they weren't as forceful as Kinsella was.

yosser hughes

plodder wrote: »

He wasn't shouted down. He had plenty of opportunity to clear up what he meant. For someone so close to law enforcement to say that "human rights should be parked" in the present climate, it's no wonder someone jumped on it. The other panelists were equally mystified, if they weren't as forceful as Kinsella was.

But certain human rights have been 'parked' that is self-evident. As a society we realise that some of these measures are required, in what is an extraordinary situation, and for the most part we accept some curtailment of certain human rights are necessary and temporary.
If some of the panelists were trying to suggest that there is another agenda at play and that somehow Varadkar et all are using this pandemic as a trojan horse; to impose more permanent curtailment of human rights, then they should say so and explain how they arrived at that belief. I think that is ridiculous but if they suggest it then they should be able to provide the reasoning. Why bring it up in the first place then? Unless they were trying to add their own bit of drama for the sake of it. Which I reckon is more likely to be the case. I think O'Keefe was trying to make that point.
Brendan O'Connor did not handle it very well at all and took a 'side'.
Apart from that, it is refreshing that there was at least some disagreement on the panel. This is such a rarity, it almost never happens. Which tells you something about the level of 'debate' tolerated by our national broadcaster.

plodder

yosser hughes wrote: »

But certain human rights have been 'parked' that is self-evident. As a society we realise that some of these measures are required in what is an extraordinary situation, and for the most part we accept some curtailment of certain human rights are necessary and temporary.

I'd say certain "civil liberties" have been curtailed. It's only terminology, but "human rights" makes it sound much more dramatic. Regardless, hardly anyone has a problem with it. I certainly don't. But, to say human rights should be parked is speculating wildly about what is to come. Someone above mentioned the prisoner release and maybe that's what it's about. He also referred to the 300 trainee gardai being on the streets. Maybe he meant we should have a tolerance perhaps that these trainees might make mistakes. Who knows? He never explained what he meant? It's also possible he didn't really know himself.

If some of the panelists were trying to suggest that there is another agenda at play and that somehow Varadkar et all are using this pandemic as a trojan horse to impose more permanent curtailment of human rights, then they should say so and explain how they arrived at that belief. I think that is ridiculous but if they suggest it then they should be able to provide the reasoning. Why bring it up in the first place then? Unless they were trying to add their own bit of drama for the sake of it. Which I reckon is more likely to be the case.

I don't think anyone suggested anything like the above. Did you listen to it?

Brendan Bendar

yosser hughes wrote: »

But certain human rights have been 'parked' that is self-evident. As a society we realise that some of these measures are required, in what is an extraordinary situation, and for the most part we accept some curtailment of certain human rights are necessary and temporary.
If some of the panelists were trying to suggest that there is another agenda at play and that somehow Varadkar et all are using this pandemic as a trojan horse; to impose more permanent curtailment of human rights, then they should say so and explain how they arrived at that belief. I think that is ridiculous but if they suggest it then they should be able to provide the reasoning. Why bring it up in the first place then? Unless they were trying to add their own bit of drama for the sake of it. Which I reckon is more likely to be the case. I think O'Keefe was trying to make that point.
Brendan O'Connor did not handle it very well at all and took a 'side'.
Apart from that, it is refreshing that there was at least some disagreement on the panel. This is such a rarity, it almost never happens. Which tells you something about the level of 'debate' tolerated by our national broadcaster.

I had another listen, and came to the conclusion that is was much ado about nothing.

O’Keefe was a tad loose in his language but as I heard it, was not implying that human rights should be discarded.

Kinsella jumped in like someone who heard a statement like ‘All people under 5’ 5” should be quarantined for life’ then didn’t even mention O’Regans name,and came up with the pompous “Defend your position Sir”

Cue 15 minutes of puffed up rhetoric talking about something that wasn’t said and Ballsy ending with a dark promise of ‘human rights’ popping up in programmes and discussions in the coming weeks.

Was like 15 mins in a hen house after a load of eggs been laid.

Everybody satisfied. !

plodder

Was like 15 mins in a hen house after a load of eggs been laid.

Indeed. :pac:

Have to say, I like it when someone is called out to justify what they are saying, and I prefer it to be done forcefully than not at all. The number of times you come close to throwing the radio out, because something outrageous was let go, far out-weighs these occasions imho.

serfboard

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Kinsella ... didn’t even mention O’Regans name

Maybe he didn't because his name wasn't O'Regan

Brendan Bendar

serfboard wrote: »

Maybe he didn't because his name wasn't O'Regan

Clean head shot............thuuunk.

Nevin Parsnipp

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Agreed... Garda Review lad (who had a wee bit of a hectoring tone to his voice I felt, even before the ‘jump in) never had a chance really to develop his first point.

The whole thing spooled up to max power way too quickly, and to be honest didn’t reflect too well on both protagonists.

Bit of common sense wouldn’t have gone amiss.

"Wee Bit" ?? I think you are being kind here Brendan...not your form... if I may respectfully suggest ?

You sure you ok ?

I would agree with your assessment of what the Dude meant...that we should put up with some inconvenience for the greater good and to support the health workers .

Some snippy coves would feel their liberty is being compromised if they had to go thru numerous checkpoints ...but the sensible among us KNOW it is in place for the overall greater good......

Brendan Bendar

Ballsy failed to do an Andrew Neil on an ‘exit strategy‘ on MMcG.

Love hearing these talking heads waffling around and none of them actually doing anything.

All with bits and pieces and waving hands around and none of them, none of them, handling the whole thing in the round as a total package.

Like the lad on the sideline who sees a guy going for a goal and missing, “Should have taken his point”

10 minutes later sees a lad taking an easy point in front of goal “Should have gone for the goal”

Lads.... fuhhherke off......thanking you.

[Deleted User]

I’ve always liked Brendan’s style but, having listened to him today, he’s turned more hectoring and interruptive (is that a word?). Does he think he’s Paxman? I also feel that he floats a random thought, mostly some form of “dig”, and then moves on, leaving it hanging.

Some of the panel are moaning enough about how the pandemic is being handled here in Ireland. It’s easy to carp from the sidelines, and a lot more difficult to be the ones who are doing the “doing”.

Disappointing, overall.

Mav11

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve always liked Brendan’s style but, having listened to him today, he’s turned more hectoring and interruptive (is that a word?). Does he think he’s Paxman? I also feel that he floats a random thought, mostly some form of “dig”, and then moves on, leaving it hanging.

Some of the panel are moaning enough about how the pandemic is being handled here in Ireland. It’s easy to carp from the sidelines, and a lot more difficult to be the ones who are doing the “doing”.

Disappointing, overall.

Because of his interruptions and talking over contributors, I can see problems getting guests to come on future shows.

Brendan Bendar

Mav11 wrote: »

Because of his interruptions and talking over contributors, I can see problems getting guests to come on future shows.

Mav, as opposed to normal shows where all the guests are in the studio in person, these panels are not present.

They mostly are on Skype, telephones, or other connections.

So until things get back to normal, I think we will have to excuse him on that aspect.

On other issues I might have to keep my powder dry .....

mgn

Mav11 wrote: »

Because of his interruptions and talking over contributors, I can see problems getting guests to come on future shows.

He wont have any problem getting guests because the type of guests on his program love the sound of their own voices, plenty to chose from.

Brendan Bendar

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve always liked Brendan’s style but, having listened to him today, he’s turned more hectoring and interruptive (is that a word?). Does he think he’s Paxman? I also feel that he floats a random thought, mostly some form of “dig”, and then moves on, leaving it hanging.

Some of the panel are moaning enough about how the pandemic is being handled here in Ireland. It’s easy to carp from the sidelines, and a lot more difficult to be the ones who are doing the “doing”.

Disappointing, overall.

Paxman was a good example of the McGuinness ‘exit strategy’ passage.

Is it me or are some of these journalists being deified by the presenter and panelists who of course usually all come from the same ‘gene pool’.

Personally I would perhaps take them with a good bit less reverence.