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

Today Show with Sarah McInerney

[Deleted User]

Séan O’Rourke has left the desk for good, and Sarah McInerney has stepped into his seat. We wish her well.

The usual rules of decency apply, carry on.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

djemba djemba

When is the new permanent presenter being announced?

Infoanon

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You inferred wrongly that that is what I said or meant.Nowhere next or near it.

Now I don’t mind insults, name calling, personal abuse, well used to it.

What I don’t like is folk trying to put words into my mouth.

Please don’t try a stunt like that on me again.

Appreciate that.

Almost as patronising as your lad .

Didn't realise asking you to answer a simple question about your lad was a 'stunt'.

A question you still have not answered.

Championing Alan Farrell as the solution to perceived bias in the media is foolhardy.

[Deleted User]

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I wouldn’t amongst ‘those people’ Ty.

However, and I say this whilst admitting I didn’t fully listen to the show today, given that most discerning folk know the ‘form’ of journalists and which ‘side‘ they are batting from, one would expect the panel to be more balanced.

I mean constructing a panel of journalists like say, Vincent Browne, Gene Kerrigan’ Collette Browne and say Oliver Callan, I think even the most biased observer wouldn’t call that balanced.

Acute observers know well what would be expected from them, I would suspect.

I totally agree, Brendan — that would not be balanced. And whilst some of us would go out of our way to hear a panel of the socialist left "Dream Team" consisting of the people you've named, that isn't what happened here.

Alan Farrell, possibly the most economically right-wing backbencher of the Dáil in living memory, was there to counterbalance the views of a milquetoast socialist. I hadn't heard the exchange myself until this morning, but I submit there was a balance of views.

Brendan Bendar

Infoanon wrote: »

Did you not say that voters know the difference between the truth and bluster implying that your lad was telling the truth.

I don't think Alan Farrells contribution today was in anyway helpful - you have a different opinion.

You inferred wrongly that that is what I said or meant.Nowhere next or near it.

Now I don’t mind insults, name calling, personal abuse, well used to it.

What I don’t like is folk trying to put words into my mouth.

Please don’t try a stunt like that on me again.

Appreciate that.

[Deleted User]

“You can't defend the indefensible - anything you say sounds self-serving and hypocritical.” The “lad” should have heard of that quote, and applied it to his performance today

Infoanon

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

You are the one implying that someone said “everything he said was true”

Who said that, and we can start from there.

Who said by implication from you “Everything he said was true”?

Did you not say that voters know the difference between the truth and bluster implying that your lad was telling the truth.

I don't think Alan Farrells contribution today was in anyway helpful - you have a different opinion.

Brendan Bendar

Infoanon wrote: »

You are the one hailing your 'lad' - simple question was everything your 'lad' said today true ?

You are the one implying that someone said “everything he said was true”

Who said that, and we can start from there.

Who said by implication from you “Everything he said was true”?

deiseindublin

Ah come off it, he came across as a right gombeen. He can call it what he wants but €16.5k extra is a pay rise, no matter how he explains it, and as for him bull****ting on about agreeing with equal pay for equal work, even though he it seemingly wasn't pay.............

He's self serving and will change with the wind depending on what they need any given day.

Infoanon

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Was it.... tell us all and enlighten us on this.

You are the one hailing your 'lad' - simple question was everything your 'lad' said today true ?

Brendan Bendar

Infoanon wrote: »

So everything that Alan Farrell said today was true ?

Was it.... tell us all and enlighten us on this.

Infoanon

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Those “Potential FG voters” know the difference between the truth and bluster.

So everything that Alan Farrell said today was true ?
(He of expenses claims fame)

The PUP / Holidays has been an utter mess this week created by the Government - completely avoidable yet 'this lad' tried to defend it.
The pay increases for the super juniors was another mess self inflicted yet 'this lad' defended it with his 'mantra' that it was not an increase and kept interrupting other contributers.

If you think that bluster appeals to mainstream voters you are very much mistaking.

Brendan Bendar

Infoanon wrote: »

You are making a lot of assumptions in your reply.

I don't agree with your notion of a 'stacked deck' and as for 'a lad willing to take on these people' it was all bluster.Trump like politics will not work in this country.

The problem with bluster and falsehoods is that eventually you get caught out and endanger alienating your vote.

It's those potential FG voters whose today's bluster will not play well with.

Those “Potential FG voters” know the difference between the truth and bluster.

Infoanon

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I would have to disagree there, and what I heard played quite well with me.

At last a lad prepared to take on these people and stand up for the govt against what I saw as a stacked deck.

The people who it might have “not played well with” to paraphrase you, are those who whatever the govt does doesn’t ‘play well‘ with.

The kind of people who it doesn’t “play well with” probably are the people who criticize the Gardai for inspecting pubs who try to game the health regulation and put our population in danger.

The ‘Aaaaaah shure’ brigade who think regulations only apply to the ‘other people’ and are nowhere to be found when a surge in infection is traced to their premises.

They then expect the taxpayer and compliant folk to sort the mess out.

Sorry dude, those days are beginning to fade out.

Time to take responsibility, my friend, take the risk, pay the price.

M’kay

You are making a lot of assumptions in your reply.

I don't agree with your notion of a 'stacked deck' and as for 'a lad willing to take on these people' it was all bluster.Trump like politics will not work in this country.

The problem with bluster and falsehoods is that eventually you get caught out and endanger alienating your vote.

It's those potential FG voters whose today's bluster will not play well with.

Brendan Bendar

Infoanon wrote: »

I thought Alan Farrell came across as obnoxious and condescending and if the other contributers listened there where falsehoods that he could easily have been picked up on.Personally I thought he was the wrong person to have on on if you have a government trying to prove that they are not disconnected.
Flippant comments such as no one is interested in Coveneys car and 'not a pay rise ' increased payments to super juniors do not play well with audiences.

I would have to disagree there, and what I heard played quite well with me.

At last a lad prepared to take on these people and stand up for the govt against what I saw as a stacked deck.

The people who it might have “not played well with” to paraphrase you, are those who whatever the govt does doesn’t ‘play well‘ with.

The kind of people who it doesn’t “play well with” probably are the people who criticize the Gardai for inspecting pubs who try to game the health regulation and put our population in danger.

The ‘Aaaaaah shure’ brigade who think regulations only apply to the ‘other people’ and are nowhere to be found when a surge in infection is traced to their premises.

They then expect the taxpayer and compliant folk to sort the mess out.

Sorry dude, those days are beginning to fade out.

Time to take responsibility, my friend, take the risk, pay the price.

M’kay

Infoanon

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Didn’t hear it all, it seemed like a re run of a Vincent Browne prog.

That is, stacked deck + the presenter against one Govt. rep who handled things quite didn’t lie down and take the shït coming from Collette Browne and others including McInerney.

Govt need to get well informed pipe swingers to get in amongst these media dogs and take them on at their own game.

I thought Alan Farrell came across as obnoxious and condescending and if the other contributers listened there where falsehoods that he could easily have been picked up on.Personally I thought he was the wrong person to have on on if you have a government trying to prove that they are not disconnected.
Flippant comments such as no one is interested in Coveneys car and 'not a pay rise ' increased payments to super juniors do not play well with audiences.

Brendan Bendar

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Yes. To articulate an opinion and hopefully engage the listeners. Why else would she be there, with respect? What purpose would you prefer her to fulfil?

I sometimes think people believe all journalists are supposed to be impartial. They are not. Brown is not a news journalist, she is employed to ventilate a particular outlook on Irish social and political life.

I wouldn’t amongst ‘those people’ Ty.

However, and I say this whilst admitting I didn’t fully listen to the show today, given that most discerning folk know the ‘form’ of journalists and which ‘side‘ they are batting from, one would expect the panel to be more balanced.

I mean constructing a panel of journalists like say, Vincent Browne, Gene Kerrigan’ Collette Browne and say Oliver Callan, I think even the most biased observer wouldn’t call that balanced.

Acute observers know well what would be expected from them, I would suspect.

[Deleted User]

imme wrote: »

Is there any value to having columnists on the show.

Yes. To articulate an opinion and hopefully engage the listeners. Why else would she be there, with respect? What purpose would you prefer her to fulfil?

I sometimes think people believe all journalists are supposed to be impartial. They are not. Brown is not a news journalist, she is employed to ventilate a particular outlook on Irish social and political life.

Sir Guy who smiles

Infoanon wrote: »

Phones in certain departments are allowed ring out.

Certain departments within the department won't answer there phones to each other.

Maybe, that doesn't mean the VOIP problem doesn't exist.

You also have the phenomenon of people ringing lines that are not there to give a 9 to 5 phone presence. I know a department
official who was on the floor of the establishment he supervised from 7 until 10, then back in the office he got an earful on the phone from the then minister for agriculture, let's call him Livan Lates, because he wasn't sitting by the phone instead of actually doing his job.

Brendan Bendar

el_gaucho wrote: »

It’s a pity he didn’t challenge her on that. She would be the first to complain about any sexist comment if it was aimed at her.

Didn’t hear it all, it seemed like a re run of a Vincent Browne prog.

That is, stacked deck + the presenter against one Govt. rep who handled things quite didn’t lie down and take the shït coming from Collette Browne and others including McInerney.

Govt need to get well informed pipe swingers to get in amongst these media dogs and take them on at their own game.

They also need not to put out anything that is not absolutely watertight and cut the supply line to these folk.

And that’s the minimum they should do...... they have six weeks to straighten out otherwise a further dose of this stuff will sink them.

Six weeks......

el_gaucho

imme wrote: »

Collette Brown was funny having a Mary Lou moment with her mans-splanning jibe.

Will she reinvent herself as SF's legal counsel.

Far stranger things have happened.

Is there any value to having columnists on the show.

It’s a pity he didn’t challenge her on that. She would be the first to complain about any sexist comment if it was aimed at her.

imme

Collette Brown was funny having a Mary Lou moment with her mans-splanning jibe.

Will she reinvent herself as SF's legal counsel.

Far stranger things have happened.

Is there any value to having columnists on the show.

Infoanon

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

You could have just named the body, noone would have known anything about your personal affairs.

There's no excuse for the lack of email service, but I wonder if reports about phones not being answered .

Phones in certain departments are allowed ring out.

Certain departments within the department won't answer there phones to each other.

Sir Guy who smiles

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well there's a limit of how much anyone is going to write here about their personal affairs. But I rang a public body about a fairly urgent matter. If involved a deadline and I needed a document. Farm related. No joy in the phone. I emailed and emailed and, got a reply two weeks later, now days after the deadline, to say "sorry, the office is currently not operating as normal".

This was only a few weeks ago, after the lockdown.

As things like this keep happening. I can see how people might get frustrated.

You could have just named the body, noone would have known anything about your personal affairs.

There's no excuse for the lack of email service, but I wonder if reports about phones not being answered are deluxe to the adoption of VOIP systems. They don't seem to ever produce engaged tones or disconnected tones; when our phones are out people ringing them just get a ringing tone. With VOIP phones being diverted to mobiles at people working away from the office people might be getting ringing tones when the person they are diverted to is on the phone.

This doesn't just happen in the public service; when I ring my vet you get a constant ringing tone and no engaged tone, but when you get through they tell you someone was on the phone.

[Deleted User]

Infoanon wrote: »

This is not a new phenomenon - things like what you have described have been going on for decades.

There is a new breed now in some departments and it is making a difference however I have numerous experiences from pre covid lockdown this year that show old habits die hard.

It's a mixed bag. You have great people in any workplace and you have slackers, that's not a public sector thing. As Sarah McInerney pointed out today, thousands of public workers have done an heroic job in the past few months. We owe them gratitude and better working conditions.

But there does seem to be another side to the public service that has taken its foot off the pedal and is slow.to reapply it.

Infoanon

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

As things like this keep happening. I can see how people might get frustrated.

This is not a new phenomenon - things like what you have described have been going on for decades.

There is a new breed now in some departments and it is making a difference however I have numerous experiences from pre covid lockdown this year that show old habits die hard.

[Deleted User]

Sir Guy who smiles wrote: »

Care to give specifics? There's no need to be so vague

Well there's a limit of how much anyone is going to write here about their personal affairs. But I rang a public body about a fairly urgent matter. If involved a deadline and I needed a document. Farm related. No joy in the phone. I emailed and emailed and, got a reply two weeks later, now days after the deadline, to say "sorry, the office is currently not operating as normal".

This was only a few weeks ago, after the lockdown.

As things like this keep happening. I can see how people might get frustrated.

NickNickleby

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm unfamiliar with the scenario whereby there are more than 2 options: go to the office, or work from home. In the case of the family members, they are working from home(their own homes) and two of them have been asked to attend in the office on specific days for tasks that can't be handled remotely, with proper precautions in place. In one office, staff are being redeployed because of reduced workload. I don't know how 'voluntary' this is, but its not really defensible to refuse if you've little to do - so people have gone.

So the stay at home and do nothing option seems very strange.

I'm talking about the new generation of Civil Servants, people who have years of private sector experience and min degree level qualifications. Maybe there are dinosaurs, but I was 60(a dinosaur? :pac:) when I was working as a TCO, and I worked my socks off. And I wouldn't have it any other way.

Infoanon

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

As someone with vulnerable family I was dragged kicking and screaming back to my job driving as a sales rep in mid May.

I didn’t want to, i resisted it as much as I could. but i was borderline forced to with implicit threats.

It’s a bit rich that some civil servants won’t even be returning to work when the pubs are back open.

Marc let himself get side tracked with civil servants working from home which I don't believe was the main thrust of his argument.

Regarding your own situation this is unfortunate, there is advice to employers and as one solicitor put it to me any employer who does not take heed is rather foolish. Alas there are foolish employers out there.

As an aside it's government advice AND medium term government strategy for people that can work from home to work from home.

Beechwoodspark

As someone with vulnerable family I was dragged kicking and screaming back to my job driving as a sales rep in mid May.

I didn’t want to, i resisted it as much as I could. but i was borderline forced to with implicit threats.

It’s a bit rich that some civil servants won’t even be returning to work when the pubs are back open.

Sir Guy who smiles

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just listened back now.

Very impressive. He's absolutely correct. There are Government agencies and offices that won't open when even the pubs are open. I too have encountered one public body where nobody seems to be working from home. I wonder if it is the same one he refers to.

If they can't work from home like the rest of us, then don't claim a full salary for 4 months and counting.

Care to give specifics? There's no need to be so vague