Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

PK@rte.ie (again). The All New (Patrick Kielty) Late Late Show Thread

1412413414415416418»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    I am not talking about anyone in a similar situation, there are plenty of controversial people or taboos to talk about.

    they are completely safe, as I say Pat just wanted to move blondie’s band member along he wasn’t there to counter his canteen guests view.

    ______

    In the end they were just greedy, they all knew one another and knew what to expect more money for no return, it was a secure cash flow, but in fairness they looked for what they wanted and fair dues to them for that, and wouldn't you be doing the same!

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,146 ✭✭✭Radio5


    I think that has been answered - he's involved in an active and ongoing legal case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 770 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif


    This kind of pious deference to law is everywhere now and it’s so frustrating. Why does being involved in an ‘active’ (and ‘ongoing’!) legal case prevent the Late Late Show from having him in the programme and exposing his views to scrutiny?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,221 ✭✭✭brian_t




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    Did the Real PK say that he would have him on TLLS if he was hosting?

    ______

    In the end they were just greedy, they all knew one another and knew what to expect more money for no return, it was a secure cash flow, but in fairness they looked for what they wanted and fair dues to them for that, and wouldn't you be doing the same!

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,902 ✭✭✭Comhrá


    Is there really any point in having him on the LLS or indeed any other media platform?

    He'd only carry on in much the same vein as he does whenever he gets the opportunity to get before a tv camera or a microphone and would be completely impervious to any opinion that doesn't suit his agenda. We wouldn't learn anything about his crusade that we don't know already.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,334 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Which he is refusing to leave.

    The judge has told him he has the key and can leave anytime if he purges his contempt by agreeing not to trespass on the school.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,914 ✭✭✭✭thesandeman


    That's my point. So why did the old PK expect the new PK to have him on his show?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    I suppose to get at TLLS for having no teeth, but as I say the real PK had no teeth, and there are plenty of times when he was toothless particularly on TLLS.

    ______

    In the end they were just greedy, they all knew one another and knew what to expect more money for no return, it was a secure cash flow, but in fairness they looked for what they wanted and fair dues to them for that, and wouldn't you be doing the same!

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 23,267 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 770 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif


    The simple fact is that he is relevant. He has generated tens of thousands of words of commentary and criticism. The Late Late Show shouldn’t be interviewing every nutcase who makes a name for themselves, but Burke I think is a clear exception.

    They could have him on against a panel of commentators - Fintan O’Toole on one side of the spectrum, David Quinn on the other - all holding him to account.

    But ultimately, he is an interesting guest who would create interesting television. The LLS should not be agonising over questions about how it would go or what we would learn. That is the kind of risk-averse, legalistic thinking that I mentioned has infected our society and is leading to inertia. The job is to be interesting and provocative, and they’re failing to be.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    Even still the Real PK would never have stood for it during his time in the seat.

    ______

    In the end they were just greedy, they all knew one another and knew what to expect more money for no return, it was a secure cash flow, but in fairness they looked for what they wanted and fair dues to them for that, and wouldn't you be doing the same!

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 19,334 ✭✭✭✭elperello


    Maybe when he's finished going toe to toe with the legal system there would be scope for a Prime Time special or a documentary.

    At the moment his issues need to be addressed within the legal framework not a light entertainment show like the LLS.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    But again its really just the Real PK saying how much braver he would be, but of course we know this is not the case.

    ______

    In the end they were just greedy, they all knew one another and knew what to expect more money for no return, it was a secure cash flow, but in fairness they looked for what they wanted and fair dues to them for that, and wouldn't you be doing the same!

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 291 ✭✭Loblox


    There's also the very real risk of the Burkes slandering someone or multiple someones live on the air. I'll admit, I'm not a solicitor, but I'd imagine that could land RTE in very hot water.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,743 ✭✭✭RoTelly


    It's not just the Burkes. As point out there are several "controversial" people that won't appear on TLLS.

    Even for TLLS to have a debate on the criminal underworld wouldn't get the green light. or on the Children's Hospital.

    ______

    In the end they were just greedy, they all knew one another and knew what to expect more money for no return, it was a secure cash flow, but in fairness they looked for what they wanted and fair dues to them for that, and wouldn't you be doing the same!

    Just one more thing .... when did they return that car

    Yesterday



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 13,621 Mod ✭✭✭✭Say Your Number


    I wish those Burke gobsh1tes would just disappear, never want to hear another word about them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 770 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif


    If that’s true, then it is a damning indictment of our libel laws. It would have a chilling effect on the ability of our media to function. But I don’t think it is true. Provided the presenter challenges a libellous remark or offers a disclaimer, then it would be Burke alone on the hook.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 447 ✭✭head82


    I can't remember the details but didn't RTE get into trouble a number of years back when Nell McCafferty slandered a public figure live on air and the individual subsequently sued RTE for damages and won? A decision was made to never allow Nell to comment live on RTE again.

    This decision became very apparent when Nell was an audience member on a LLS tribute to Gay Byrne at the time of his passing and she struggled to put across her contribution but Tubridy cut her off every time. It was a very uncomfortable watch.

    I suspect RTE would not want to risk a similar scenario with Enoch. The obvious solution would be to pre-record the interview but that potential self censorship/sanitising tends to negate any appeal of watching EB going off on a rant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 770 ✭✭✭iffandonlyif


    I don’t know about that one but the famous case was when John Waters and the Iona Institute sued RTE in advance of the marriage referendum for allowing a guest to call them (I think) homophobic. RTE settled, which I for one thought was a dereliction of duty.

    That has made RTE extremely jumpy. Their legal stance seems to be that so long as a presenter makes a disclaimer like ‘I’m sure X would say something different’, then they are not liable, which is surely fair. It’s untenable that RTE would be liable for what public individuals say in their broadcasts. If you think you’ve been libelled, sue the individual. (Of course, they don’t, because they’re much less likely to ever receive damages.)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,146 ✭✭✭Radio5


    Pat Kenny was just stirring it really, trying to make his successor look bad. An old trick.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80,212 ✭✭✭✭Welsh Megaman


    Bob Marley?

    Oh, go on then.

    (One of the best, if not the best ever live performance captured by the BBC).



Advertisement
Advertisement