At least on radio you can't see her smug face.
Correct evaluation Payther.
Panel composition:
David W. Higgins
Niamh Hourican
Finian McGrath
Alison O’Connor
Finian McGrath claiming the scenes and “shouting and roaring” in the Dáil during the week were disgraceful, as he shouts and roars….had to be reigned in by O’Connor.
Yay!…politics on RTE for a change!
Niamh Hourigan and Alison O’Connor would usually be absolutely screaming misogyny around to the whole circus in the Dail and how the new female Ceann Comhairle was shouted down etc.…but Verona Murphy's is not on their 'political' team, so feck her.
I was a little surprised that card wasn’t played alright but I think we’re onto the misogyny section now.
McGrath has behaved like a petulant child this morning. An absolute disgrace and embarrassment.
He never give free rein to any guest, in case they might cause a court case.
He had to step in to stop McGrath not because of anything he said, but because of his behaviour. That would have been obvious if you had been listening to the segment.
The dude was right …lot of roaring and shouting going on these days.
The usual suspects involved no doubt spurred on by the scenes at the Capitol following Trumps lot disputing the election results.
Ballsy had to step in to quell the chaos .
There is an alarming use of the shout and roar tactic from certain quarters which is no matter what happens keep talking until the correspondent physically shuts you down or is forced to back down.
Both the female 'contributors ' were guilty this am.
there was some writer on yesterday, never heard of her and don’t know her name. She’s polyamorous and I dunno but it felt like BOC was coming across like an owl pervert asking her question after question about it.
I presume that wasn’t the main point of having her on, polyamory
The panel was a shambles this morning, with only Higgins behaving as you’d expect an invited guest to behave on such a panel. The ladies were certainly not wholly innocent, but McGrath’s behaviour was akin to that of a bull in a china shop. He deserves most of the blame and criticism for his “performance” (and it was a performance) this morning. It wasn’t just the shouting and roaring, it was the snidely delivered quips while others were talking too. I’d be surprised if he’s invited back again after that.
but the pubs don’t open till 12:30 on Sunday 😂
Naoise Dolan, author.
Interesting woman.
“There’s no jealousy for me in polyamory” - Author, Naoise Dolan on a non-monogamous life - Brendan O'Connor
https://search.app/xXw7wAtJHkREFgzM7
She was given a suitable name.
"The name Naoise is a boy's name . Although it is now more often used for baby girls in Ireland, Naoise is originally a masculine name. It belonged to a handsome young warrior in Irish legend, lover of the tragic Deirdre, who killed herself after Naoise was murdered by the jealous king Conchobhar."
That's certainly one way to describe her.
“There’s no jealousy for me in polyamory” Of course not, because she's not the one being cheated on (her preference is to be with women who already have a "primary partner"). Each to their own and all that, but let's not try to dress up vacuous and self-absorbed ramblings - on what is essentially helping to enable a type of cheating - as some kind of deep intellectual, philosophical reflections.
I have always wondered why they don't kill the mics of those who aren't speaking. Might put an end to this increasing nuisance.
Well, speak as you find and all that.
I'm not endorsing the polyamorous lifestyle as such but I did find her contribution to the programme interesting.
Equally I wouldn't condemn her or other polyamorous persons either.
I'm not condemning her at all. I was also commenting on her contribution, which I just found nauseatingly pretentious.
If you're into the polyamorous lifestyle, then just get on with it. Just don't try to fecking intellectualise it as being a more virtuous type of cheating…the 'thinking man/woman's' cheating.
She's an author so good with words and well able to communicate on her own terms.
That's why she made a good guest.
”She’s an author so good with words” One doesn’t always follow the other. For example, Joe Duffy is an author.
And Ryan Tubridy
I thought that newspaper panel was quite good. It had gotten a bit sterile and stale recently, with everyone just giving their opinions and little disagreement or discussion. Certainly, Finian McGrath came out with guns blazing. But, I don't think there was any rancour in it. He made an interesting point as well about the super-juniors in the cabinet.
What McGrath said was interesting in the context of Sinn Fein's case in the High Court about the consitutionality of the present (and previous) governments including these "super juniors". McGrath said he was treated exactly the same as full cabinet ministers. No vote was ever taken apparently. If there were, then the supers wouldn't have had a vote. If that is still the practice then on the face of it, SF have an arguable case that the constitution's limit of 15 government ministers is being exceeded unlawfully.
Lawyers take money from anyone who will pay them to make an "arguable case". I hope Pa Daly will be paying the bill if he loses, and not us the taxpayers.
"Mr Daly, who is represented by Mr McDonagh as well as barristers Brendan Hennessy and John Biggins, and solicitor John Rogers, is taking his action against the Taoiseach, the Government, Ireland and the Attorney General."
The state often pays the bills of cases it wins, if it's seen to be in the public interest for an important area of law to be clarified. Certainly the two arguments I heard this morning from the government, wouldn't give me confidence that they will even win the case.
They seem to be relying on the fact that the super juniors can't vote, but the constitution says nothing about votes being any function of government. I'd say you can make other strong arguments against the govt. in relation to confidentiality as well.
That's what I mean by an "arguable case".
Is this court case going to improve the lives of any of the listeners to Brendan O'Connor, win or lose? If it costs more than the Bike Shed, will there be as much outrage from the usual sources?
Agitating again? As I’m sure you’re fully aware of the case falls within the category of “significant public interest” so costs will be paid.
There was a good feature on it on Pat Kenny just now. Even staunch anti-SFer PK was leaning in favour of this challenge, as was the guest, a Professor of Law from Trinity. I’m no SF sympathiser but can see the merit in this challenge. Just because it’s SF doesn’t mean it’s wrong. I wonder if SF were in power and a FG or FF TD were making this challenge would you find it so irksome?
One might be cynical and think these super junior positions were created to keep more vocal back benchers and independents happy…..at not inconsiderable expense to the taxpayer.
Mod: Warned for attacking the poster, not the post
What has it got to do with the Brendan O'Connor radio programme?
