Newstalk Megathread 22/08/16 to date

VonLuck · 13-05-2021 8:51am

Ciara Kelly is not a very convincing presenter. A few times this morning she has fumbled over introductions to segments or read out texts without knowing what to do afterwards. Seems to be a regular thing.

13-05-2021 10:46am

She's terrible tbh.
She mentioned their "dulcet tones" this morning, I reckon she knows she's sounds like nails on a blackboard half the time.
Doesn't have a voice for radio at all ............. the "have a good day" is a nice touch though at the end of most of the shows.

13-05-2021 2:03pm

Augeo wrote: »

She's terrible tbh.
She mentioned their "dulcet tones" this morning, I reckon she knows she's sounds like nails on a blackboard half the time.
Doesn't have a voice for radio at all ............. the "have a good day" is a nice touch though at the end of most of the shows.

Yep I agree , her voice is very harsh especially for an early morning show , just can’t listen to her for more than 5 mins.

veryangryman · 13-05-2021 4:27pm

The station has an obsession with dogpoo - Are they that badly off for articles?

whisky_galore · 14-05-2021 9:21am

veryangryman wrote: »

The station has an obsession with dogpoo - Are they that badly off for articles?

You never see white dogsh1t these days.

EmmetSpiceland · 14-05-2021 11:43am

whisky_galore wrote: »

You never see white dogsh1t these days.

That’s right, W. Always thought the white “jobbies” were the drained husks of, formerly, brown turds that the flies had got at.

But, apparently, it’s to do with dogs no longer being fed bones, like they were back in the day. Who knows what to believe?

One thing I will say, you always thanked your “lucky stars” when you stepped in something and looked down to see dry, white, dog shít crumbling but not sticking.

BPKS · 14-05-2021 12:41pm

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

That’s right, W. Always thought the white “jobbies” were the drained husks of, formerly, brown turds that the flies had got at.

But, apparently, it’s to do with dogs no longer being fed bones, like they were back in the day. Who knows what to believe?

One thing I will say, you always thanked your “lucky stars” when you stepped in something and looked down to see dry, white, dog shít crumbling but not sticking.

Its time to buy a lotto ticket when that happens

mariaalice · 17-05-2021 1:10pm

Fair play to them last week, a tiny story about workplace monitoring, was spun out to cover early morning, mid-morning, and afternoon.

There must have been some panic when it turns out the vaccine role out is going well what were they all going to talk about now.

A lot of content is based on blaming the government, HSE, etc.

I would not normally get the chance to listen to the radio all day because of work but due to having to self isolate I got a whole day of it. Fascinating to say the least.

17-05-2021 1:30pm

Yes, they just had a randomer on who is an expert (you know what I mean) on cyber security and GDPR.

Ciara was focussed on those with STIs or AIDs this morning who might have their conditions published on the net now...... max drama.

2smiggy · 17-05-2021 1:47pm

Augeo wrote: »

Ciara was focussed on those with STIs or AIDs this morning who might have their conditions published on the net now...... max drama.

that would be a very real worry for a lot of people , if (which is very possible) they dump the data online. This is already a very nosy country , you could imagine what would go on

redbuck · 17-05-2021 8:52pm

Augeo wrote: »

Yes, they just had a randomer on who is an expert (you know what I mean) on cyber security and GDPR.
.

Jess Kelly must be feeling miffed she didn’t get invited on for that spot. She’s an expert at conducting a google search and sharing the content of the first search result that pops up.

veryangryman · 20-05-2021 9:24am

Kieran seemed to grow a pair on THS yesterday with the councillor. Admittedly the guest was an easy target, stone age attitude to solving Dublin's drug's problem.

Anyway a massive improvement.

2smiggy · 26-05-2021 8:20am

Tom Parlon on trying to explain why 28000 construction workers are still on the PUP

For example my friend had to advertise on done deal to get labourers for a job he is doing, and he pays very well

Allinall · 26-05-2021 8:28am

2smiggy wrote: »

Tom Parlon on trying to explain why 28000 construction workers are still on the PUP

For example my friend had to advertise on done deal to get labourers for a job he is doing, and he pays very well

Parlon was spot on.

The government have created a scenario where nixers are rife in the construction game.

Between people working at home, or at home on the PUP with nothing better to do, demand for home improvements has risen dramatically. This, coupled with thousands of construction workers twiddling their thumbs and collecting the PUP, nixers was the inevitable outcome.

It sounds now like a good few (~28,000) have decided there's more money to be made by staying on the PUP and working on the side.

There should be much stricter criteria to qualify for the PUP, and the threat of severe sanctions if found to be claiming illegally.

2smiggy · 26-05-2021 8:37am

Allinall wrote: »

Parlon was spot on.

The government have created a scenario where nixers are rife in the construction game.

Between people working at home, or at home on the PUP with nothing better to do, demand for home improvements has risen dramatically. This, coupled with thousands of construction workers twiddling their thumbs and collecting the PUP, nixers was the inevitable outcome.

It sounds now like a good few (~28,000) have decided there's more money to be made by staying on the PUP and working on the side.

There should be much stricter criteria to qualify for the PUP, and the threat of severe sanctions if found to be claiming illegally.

definitely , the payments should be stopped immediately , and people should be free to reapply. There should not be the same demand, and more time to access the applications. It's a ridiculous situation.

Pussyhands · 26-05-2021 8:45am

The PUP has been a sham and the government are going to find it very very hard to withdraw supports.

The amount of money pumped into it is ridiculous...you have pubs etc getting big payments every week, big payments for outdoor dining, staff are being paid by the tax payer etc.

pc7 · 26-05-2021 8:47am

Construction just one sector, where I got for my hair, nails etc. are saying while hair is busy everyone is getting their nails done via nixers, the girls didn't come back to work as they are on PUP and doing nixers, she's hired 2 new staff for nails. Sadly though she'll probably have to let one go already as numbers just aren't there.

2smiggy · 26-05-2021 8:59am

Pussyhands wrote: »

The PUP has been a sham and the government are going to find it very very hard to withdraw supports.

The amount of money pumped into it is ridiculous...you have pubs etc getting big payments every week, big payments for outdoor dining, staff are being paid by the tax payer etc.

you can imagine the outrage from the likes of SF if they mention withdrawing the PUP !!

I've friends and relatives with country pubs. There hasn't been a peep from them for nearly a year. They never had it better !! You don't hear much complaining from many sections of people claiming PUP. Speaks for itself

Pussyhands · 26-05-2021 9:03am

2smiggy wrote: »

you can imagine the outrage from the likes of SF if they mention withdrawing the PUP !!

I've friends and relatives with country pubs. There hasn't been a peep from them for nearly a year. They never had it better !! You don't hear much complaining from many sections of people claiming PUP. Speaks for itself

The country pubs are laughing. I know one getting 1000 grant per week along with man and wife getting the PUP...they're making more now than they did pre covid and no work having to be done for it!

BPKS · 26-05-2021 9:21am

Pussyhands wrote: »

The country pubs are laughing. I know one getting 1000 grant per week along with man and wife getting the PUP...they're making more now than they did pre covid and no work having to be done for it!

Fair enough but I wonder how many will re-open when the grants run out and they can only have certain capacities, there is huge unemployment coming down the tracks reducing spending and the trend towards drinking at home that has become even more of the norm since last March continues.

There will be a bounce for a few months but the early months of 2022 will tell the real story of the damage done I reckon.

Pussyhands · 26-05-2021 9:34am

BPKS wrote: »

Fair enough but I wonder how many will re-open when the grants run out and they can only have certain capacities, there is huge unemployment coming down the tracks reducing spending and the trend towards drinking at home that has become even more of the norm since last March continues.

There will be a bounce for a few months but the early months of 2022 will tell the real story of the damage done I reckon.

A lot of pubs should have been gone pre covid, they were doing nothing, hence why they're laughing now.

The way the public finances have been managed during covid has been disgraceful I think. The government added 5 billion in PERMANENT spending to the budget!

2smiggy · 26-05-2021 9:34am

many pubs were close to closure anyway, especially in the country side. This just speeded up the process. The days of day drinkers is mostly gone (near me anyway , except for the alcoholics)

Not much use opening at 7 pm in the evening and only having a few customers, most coming in at 10pm or so.

whisky_galore · 26-05-2021 9:35am

Environmental expert got a bit waffley when quizzed on impacts of car batteries.

meeeeh · 26-05-2021 9:49am

Pussyhands wrote: »

A lot of pubs should have been gone pre covid, they were doing nothing, hence why they're laughing now.

The way the public finances have been managed during covid has been disgraceful I think. The government added 5 billion in PERMANENT spending to the budget!

Actually government actions were were deemed appropriate by IMF to prevent even deeper crisis. People whinging about PUP are usually those whose earnings were not affected. We had to close for couple of moths last spring and government help was invaluable making sure our cash flow wasn't affected, our suppliers were paid. We claimed pup only when we had to (when we were closed), since then we employed extra people and that's only possible because we didn't choke in debt due to two months of closure and our employees were not on breadline.

I know there are abuses, I don't like them and they also affect our competitiveness. That will have to be resolved. However PUP protected jobs and helped people many of who worked for years without claiming anything. So any of you who think PUP and other supports were wasted go and run your own business employ people and feel responsible for their financial situation and then tell me how PUP was waste of money.

ghostdancer · 26-05-2021 10:04am

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually government actions were were deemed appropriate by IMF to prevent even deeper crisis. People whinging about PUP are usually those whose earnings were not affected. We had to close for couple of moths last spring and government help was invaluable making sure our cash flow wasn't affected, our suppliers were paid. We claimed pup only when we had to (when we were closed), since then we employed extra people and that's only possible because we didn't choke in debt due to two months of closure and our employees were not on breadline.

I know there are abuses, I don't like them and they also affect our competitiveness. That will have to be resolved. However PUP protected jobs and helped people many of who worked for years without claiming anything. So any of you who think PUP and other supports were wasted go and run your own business employ people and feel responsible for their financial situation and then tell me how PUP was waste of money.

Don't think anyone is claiming that PUP wasn't necessary in most cases.

26-05-2021 10:08am

Pussyhands wrote: »

A lot of pubs should have been gone pre covid, they were doing nothing, hence why they're laughing now.

The way the public finances have been managed during covid has been disgraceful I think. The government added 5 billion in PERMANENT spending to the budget!

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually government actions were were deemed appropriate by IMF to prevent even deeper crisis. People whinging about PUP are usually those whose earnings were not affected. We had to close for couple of moths last spring and government help was invaluable making sure our cash flow wasn't affected, our suppliers were paid. We claimed pup only when we had to (when we were closed), since then we employed extra people and that's only possible because we didn't choke in debt due to two months of closure and our employees were not on breadline.

I know there are abuses, I don't like them and they also affect our competitiveness. That will have to be resolved. However PUP protected jobs and helped people many of who worked for years without claiming anything. So any of you who think PUP and other supports were wasted go and run your own business employ people and feel responsible for their financial situation and then tell me how PUP was waste of money.

The poster was obviously referring to pubs that were doing very little business pre covid and now are financially better off with PUP and the other supports.

Those cases are independent of cases where PUP etc are being abused so your rant of a post is not at all on topic.

meeeeh · 26-05-2021 10:50am

Augeo wrote: »

The poster was obviously referring to pubs that were doing very little business pre covid and now are financially better off with PUP and the other supports.

Those cases are independent of cases where PUP etc are being abused so your rant of a post is not at all on topic.

And I was obviously replying to the sentence you did not put in bold. Money for supports were not wasted by the state and short-sighted armchair economists would more likely bankrupt the country with their penny pinching.

I am not going to comment on viability of pubs, I'm not an expert as I suspect is not the poster I was replying to.

26-05-2021 10:54am

meeeeh wrote: »

And I was obviously replying to the sentence you did not put in bold. Money for supports were not wasted by the state and short-sighted armchair economists would more likely bankrupt the country with their penny pinching.

I am not going to comment on viability of pubs, I'm not an expert as I suspect is not the poster I was replying to.

My comment still stands.

"The way the public finances have been managed during covid has been disgraceful I think. The government added 5 billion in PERMANENT spending to the budget"

No where did the poster mention anything that warranted this reply "So any of you who think PUP and other supports were wasted go and run your own business employ people and feel responsible for their financial situation and then tell me how PUP was waste of money."

The piece I didn't bold was with respect to "PERMANENT spending", totally unrelated to your rant of a post.

meeeeh · 26-05-2021 11:03am

Augeo wrote: »

My comment still stands.

"The way the public finances have been managed during covid has been disgraceful I think. The government added 5 billion in PERMANENT spending to the budget"

No where did the poster mention anything that warranted this reply "So any of you who think PUP and other supports were wasted go and run your own business employ people and feel responsible for their financial situation and then tell me how PUP was waste of money."

The piece I didn't bold was with respect to "PERMANENT spending", totally unrelated to your rant of a post.

If I remember correctly majority of 5 billon of permanent spending is going on health care. I'm too busy to google that at the moment however we could hardly call trying to reduce waiting lists, increasing the number of doctors and similar waste of money. However I'm open to your justification for why it's waste of money.

kleiner feigling · 26-05-2021 11:04am

BPKS wrote: »

Fair enough but I wonder how many will re-open when the grants run out and they can only have certain capacities, there is huge unemployment coming down the tracks reducing spending and the trend towards drinking at home that has become even more of the norm since last March continues.

There will be a bounce for a few months but the early months of 2022 will tell the real story of the damage done I reckon.

Agreed!
I reckon a lot of people receiving PUP feel they're onto a winner..... they'll only realize the true cost when unemployment continues indefinitely and the country is left with massive debt.... guess who'll be paying for that!

I think PUP is a key reason why people haven't protested the lockdown measures more strongly over the past year, especially young people, who will ultimately be paying for the government's ineptitude for decades to come.
It has pacified people, to our detriment.

EDIT: and yes, the PUP was absolutely essential last year, but a lot of the shutdowns should have been eased looooong ago

Newstalk Megathread 22/08/16 to date

Comments