PK and the pointless Tina Leonard

alastair wrote: »

Matter of opinion - unlike the 'taxpayer funded' nonsense.

It's not an opinion that "That's a good question Pat" is a terrible answer to a question. It's a fact.

She is awful, I would give more detailed answers myself and I'm a clueless idiot.

alastair wrote: »

So the penny drops that she isn't taxpayer funded and never worked for the NCA? Where do RTE say she does?

I'd love to see the transcript where her sole response to a question is to compliment it. Because it sounds like pure BS to me.

You were told all ready what she does.

I have no vested interest in lieing about what she does or doesn't do.

Do you?

alastair wrote: »

None at all, but then I'm not claiming that she doesn't answer a question, but rather compliments it. Nor am I claiming she works for a body that she does
Not.

can you clear up your stance on tina so?

Do you think she gives well researched intelligent answeres to questions put to her on the show?

or?

ntlbell wrote: »

can you clear up your stance on tina so?

Do you think she gives well researched intelligent answeres to questions put to her on the show?

or?

I think she's well informed on consumer matters, having years of experience in the area, and I think she works within the format provided for her - I'm not going to pretend that she doesn't answer a question when it's asked of her. You might like her style or not, and you might not like the answers she gives to questions, but I'd love to see an honest criticism of the accuracy of her feedback - it's normally on the money - and presumably well researched.

I've problems with armchair generals who, despite demonstrably not knowing their arse from their elbow in what they post, feel obliged to pontificate about her employment, relationship with PK, and credentials.

alastair wrote: »

I think she's well informed on consumer matters, having years of experience in the area, and I think she works within the format provided for her - I'm not going to pretend that she doesn't answer a question when it's asked of her. You might like her style or not, and you might not like the answers she gives to questions, but I'd love to see an honest criticism of the accuracy of her feedback - it's normally on the money - and presumably well researched.

I've problems with armchair generals who, despite demonstrably not knowing their arse from their elbow in what they post, feel obliged to pontificate about her employment, relationship with PK, and credentials.

I didn't question her employment, relationship with PK or anything else.

I'm stating that she doesn't seem to do any preperation for the show and seems unable to answer the vast majority of questions put to her in a clear and concise manner offten avoiding the question or rambling off topic about something that has nothing to do with the question which looks like an attempt to hide her lack of knowledge on the given subject.

she's not the first and won't be the last to do it.

Years of experience heading up a consumer affairs office might count as expertise for some, but no matter.

alastair wrote: »

Years of experience heading up a consumer affairs office might count as expertise for some, but no matter.

Having a position in an agency doesn't make one an expert.

The same way being a financial regulator doesn't mean you can regulate.

ntlbell wrote: »

Having a position in an agency doesn't make one an expert.

The same way being a financial regulator doesn't mean you can regulate.

Grasping at straws much?

alastair wrote: »

Grasping at straws much?

Is that not what you were doing when trying to prove her credentials?

I think for the sake of openness you should do the right thing and explain your relationship to Tina

alastair wrote: »

I've no need to prove her credentials - they're a matter of public record- and available for anyone with an ounce of interest in her actual expertise.

It's worth noting that despite all the bluster and misinformation levelled against her, no-one has managed one instance of erroneous information coming from Tina

You seem to think that a job title = credentials

Since you didn't like my other example let me give you one everyone should be able to easily understand.

Bill Gates founder, chair man, now non ex chairman of microsoft for about 35 years. no one could doubt his credentials right?

You could throw question after question about MS products at Bill that without prior research he wouldn't be able to answer so if he went on to a show unprepared depending on the question he may or may not be able to give a good answer but no one can doubt the man spent those amount of years in various roles in MS right?

Now if the chairman of MS was asked something he hadn't prepared for and didn't know you would hope he would admit he didn't know or he may give some roundabout answer that doesn't mean much and doesn't really answer the question and while doing that probably won't eithier give mis-information.

My problem at least is not with the content of her answers it's the lack of content and the constant veering off the topic of the question. So she may have the "qualification" and the job title of someone who should be able to answer the question very clearly considering her audience but she fails to do so.

I don't know the woman from Anna really and have nothing against her personally I would just prefare to listen to someone who came prepared to the show and answered peoples questions clearly and consisley on our national radio that we pay for it's not too much to ask.

This is the second thread about Tina and her lack of information when answering questions so are you suggesting that the people who post in the threads are just posting as they're VI's and want a slot on PK? or are too stupid to understand her responses?

You seem to be taking this very personally and too personally for me to belive you have no connection to her.