Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

bloodless_coup · 19-10-2017 12:19pm

Just tuned in, Cuddihy ranting about being "liberal", instantly tuned out.

Grolschevik · 19-10-2017 12:50pm

doylefe wrote: »

Just tuned in, Cuddihy ranting about being "liberal", instantly tuned out.

You missed an interesting and amusing discussion/banter with illiberal texters on the nature of modern liberalism and the term "snowflake". I believe there's a segment on it later on.

ballsymchugh · 19-10-2017 1:08pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

You missed an interesting and amusing discussion/banter with illiberal texters on the nature of modern liberalism and the term "snowflake". I believe there's a segment on it later on.

Moncrieff?!! :pac:

Ol' Donie · 19-10-2017 1:33pm

ballsymchugh wrote: »

Moncrieff?!! :pac:

Hahaha

nullzero · 20-10-2017 12:29am

Ciara Kelly in my opinion isn't a name that will pull in listeners. I don't think she's appallingly bad but nor is she exceptionally good.
I think her appointment is ultimately tokenistic and I would be very surprised if she is still presenting the show 12 months down the line.

Hooks Golf Handicap · 20-10-2017 10:24am

Grolschevik wrote: »

No doubt she will still own and operate her practice, but employ a locum doctor to take her place on less money than she was taking home.

She spoke about her practice a good bit when starting out on the Right Hook.
She took a huge mortgage/loan out to expand her practice just before the crash.
She has a number of GP's & nurses that work for her out of her practice.
She missed countless mortgage payments through the bad years, only breaking even recently.

I can't imagine her NT salary would beat what a busy GP brings in so she must do it for a passion.
Plus she's an out & out atheist & proclaimed it on air, gets an extra point for that.

If the inside NT expose was correct her appointment wont heal any wounds.
None of the big money presenters in NT are qualified journalists & apparently it really grates with researchers/producer staff who are all media graduates working for bottom penny.

CatFromHue · 21-10-2017 2:59pm

Bobby was covering the show yesterday and he had Ciara on for a bit.

She said her show, starting Monday, would have 8-10 callers from the public on the air each hour........... Jaysuz :eek:

That sounds terrible.

Say Your Number · 21-10-2017 3:04pm

Can't be much worse than High Noon in fairness.

Couldn't they just give Moncrieff his time back, his show has really suffered since he lost that hour.

CatFromHue · 21-10-2017 3:39pm

It sounds too much like Liveline for me so I wouldn't have much interest in listening.

Roger_007 · 21-10-2017 3:47pm

CatFromHue wrote: »

It sounds too much like Liveline for me so I wouldn't have much interest in listening.

It sounds like Newstalk's answer to Liveline. Certainly Duffy and Kelly have one thing in common; neither of them tolerate any opinion that doesn't fit in with their own agenda.

newcavanman · 21-10-2017 7:08pm

monstermag wrote: »

Cuddihy makes Jonathan Healy sound like Alex Jones. Having said that I don't mind him that much.
Is there any moderate voice left in Irish media? Pat Kenny threads the fine line between left and right, and all the better for it. There's very few broadcasters who can handle a wide range of topics and ciara Kelly is not one of them, she's competent and l do like her but she doesn't make me want to turn on the radio or feel I'd miss anything by not listening. No matter what u say about George hook, u must admit he could handle any topic and add to it. Pak Kenny is the same. Gerry Ryan was probably the master of radio an absolute genius at the art of broadcasting, there was nothing he couldn't deal with, music, politics, sport, religion, comedy, arts, health, sex, etc. Broadcasters like that don't come around that often. No matter who newstalk get, they're going to be pretty much the same. Blandness seem to be name of the game theses days.

I was a huge Hook fan. I loved his drivetime show and altho the timing didnt suit, I liked his lunchtime show. I have abandoned Newstalk completely now, even Yates seems to have lost the edge he once had, altho given what happened to Hook, you can hardly blame him. I find ciara kelly to be as bad if not worse than ray darcy, her preaching is as painful as her dismissal of anything other than a firm left of centre point of view.
My vote for best radio host currently is Sean O Rourke. He is the only heavy hitter who can sem to Straddle the full spectrum from left to right without having to give a sermon of his own opinions. Pat Kenny used to have that skill but seems to have lost it in recent years, especially when he starts on about Trump. I think radio in Dublin in particular is in a very very bad place. You only have to look at the number of people in public transport on their phones, when technology means that people can easily recieve Internet radio in their cars, then the days of people like Ray darcy et all, getting 400k a year will be over

Ol' Donie · 23-10-2017 12:33pm

They should have called it "Loads coming up with Ciara Kelly".

Y'know, cos she says We've got loads coming up every few minutes.

I say we'll give it a go. The whole fiasco over George was distasteful in many ways, but so far I prefer this to his casual disregard for facts in favour of ranting about whatever.

quintana76 · 23-10-2017 12:49pm

Who is this kid she has on reviewing the TV. We have all just being called racist (I think) a bit incoherent it was. Just knew she would start with the white girl dressed as a Muslim programme on Channel 4. The word racist was thrown around a lot. Don't know how you apply that to a religion.
But hey, when you want to be one of the gang.
I don't mean to be cruel but she has a lot to learn. She is obviously very young and has to start somewhere. Sounded young enough to be Dr Ciara's daughter.
At least Hook had proper reviewers.

kunst nugget · 23-10-2017 12:54pm

quintana76 wrote: »

Who is this kid she has on reviewing the TV. We have all just being called racist (I think) a bit incoherent it was. Just knew she would start with the white girl dressed as a Muslim programme on Channel 4. The word racist was thrown around a lot. Don't know how you apply that to a religion.
But hey, when you want to be one of the gang.
I don't mean to be cruel but she has a lot to learn. She is obviously very young and has to start somewhere. Sounded young enough to be Dr Ciara's daughter.
At least Hook had proper reviewers.

She was talking about the Muslim community having a problem with a white woman being browned up for the purposes of portraying a Muslim and the racism the woman faced in the immediate aftermath of the Manchester bombing which is when it was filmed. I don't know where you thought you personally were being called racist in that.

quintana76 · 23-10-2017 1:16pm

Surely if the intention was good in that it was an effort to improve the image of Muslims (God knows it is needed) they could have conceded. Shot themselves in the foot again it seems.
The reaction after the Manchester bombs was sectarian not racist. There is a difference you know. (Equally wrong). I know the racist word is very useful and trendy for some but it should be used in the right context.
I hate to say this but a religion is not a race. Ask Khalid Kelly. (Oh sorry you can't).
The reviewer was throwing a non applicable word around like confetti. A bit more research and less pandering to peer popular tropes might have made the whole review sound less juvenile.
Then again this could be a true reflection of the views of the new NewsTalk. If so it will soon be the past NewsTalk.

ThisRegard · 23-10-2017 1:20pm

quintana76 wrote: »

Just knew she would start with the white girl dressed as a Muslim programme on Channel 4.

But she didn't, she talked about a few other shows first. And no point in talking about that Channel 4 show another week after its already started.

A+ for effort in looking to be offended by the liberals though.

quintana76 · 23-10-2017 1:36pm

She did not. It was the first item.

Roger_007 · 23-10-2017 1:43pm

Senator Leyden seems to have got the same treatment as George Hook.
Proper order, I say, how dare he express an opinion. :rolleyes:

kunst nugget · 23-10-2017 1:48pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

Senator Leyden seems to have got the same treatment as George Hook.
Proper order, I say, how dare he express an opinion. :rolleyes:

What he said was stupid and people are calling him out on it. Are we suppose to treat everybody's opinion as sacrosanct even when it's completely ill-informed?

23-10-2017 1:51pm

We're not rehashing the George Hook debate on this thread. The George Hook thread is closed.

This thread is called 'Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly'.

kunst nugget · 23-10-2017 1:56pm

That Karl Spain segment was absolutely dreadful - he's like the anti-matter of funny. And it's going to be a weekly spot? Jaysus…

quintana76 · 23-10-2017 2:16pm

Deathwish radio.

California Dreamer · 23-10-2017 9:25pm

I know that Ciara Kelly has been a regular on George's show and doing fill in the last few weeks BUT every show at least deserves a few weeks to bed in, look at the teething errors and move on from there. So Ciara made a few mistakes on some of her interviews, SO WHAT!!! Did the TV reviewer say something you didn't like? Boo urns!!

ghostdancer · 24-10-2017 9:55am

Ol' Donie wrote: »

They should have called it "Loads coming up with Ciara Kelly".

Y'know, cos she says We've got loads coming up every few minutes.

much like Off The Ball always reminding us that they have a "busy show on the way" before going over to the newsroom

ButtersSuki · 24-10-2017 12:00pm

Didn't hear it and unlikely to. Are they trying to make it a phone in show a la Da Lahv Lahn?

bloodless_coup · 24-10-2017 12:09pm

Is that Eamon Ryan? How much air time does this fella need. Constantly on newstalk

ThisRegard · 25-10-2017 12:18pm

She had a pretty good and strong opening monologue today.

BPKS · 25-10-2017 12:23pm

ButtersSuki wrote: »

Didn't hear it and unlikely to. Are they trying to make it a phone in show a la Da Lahv Lahn?

I heard that this was the way the show has been this week.

Just listened to the last 10 minutes to decide for myself and she had two callers on. I suppose they need to fill the airwaves with something.

I wont be listening again. Need to find a good podcast for 12pm-1pm.

Roger_007 · 25-10-2017 1:07pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

She had a pretty good and strong opening monologue today.

Monologue? It was more like a sermon. She gave the judge in the Humphries case a right lambasting as well as Eamon Dunphy for his comments.
She also 'ordered' the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence.
Maybe, in future such cases, judges could consult Ciara before passing sentence?

monstermag · 25-10-2017 1:08pm

BPKS wrote: »

I heard that this was the way the show has been this week.

Just listened to the last 10 minutes to decide for myself and she had two callers on. I suppose they need to fill the airwaves with something.

I wont be listening again. Need to find a good podcast for 12pm-1pm.

Have u tried Joe Rogan's podcast? Don't know of any good Irish podcasts.

Del.Monte · 25-10-2017 1:53pm

Still don't like her but she was spot-on in regard to child abuse.

ThisRegard · 25-10-2017 1:58pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

Monologue? It was more like a sermon. She gave the judge in the Humphries case a right lambasting as well as Eamon Dunphy for his comments.
She also 'ordered' the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence.
Maybe, in future such cases, judges could consult Ciara before passing sentence?

Some people evidently will look to be offended or find fault with everything, even something as sound as what she spoke about.

meeeeh · 25-10-2017 2:15pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

Monologue? It was more like a sermon. She gave the judge in the Humphries case a right lambasting as well as Eamon Dunphy for his comments.
She also 'ordered' the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence.
Maybe, in future such cases, judges could consult Ciara before passing sentence?

I think she has every right to an opinion. I'm well aware that judges don't pull the number out of a hat and I know of similar case where the judgement was even more lenient but it didn't involve public person. Still I think there is something wrong in a society that rates repetitive abuse of children 3 times less seriously than customs scam (garlic importer). The outrage especially on social media can be a bit over the top but the whole thing is dragging since 2011 and I'm sure those six years were not pleasant for victim. After all this 2 years just seems grossly unfair and pointless. I think her handling of the matter was perfectly fine.

kunst nugget · 25-10-2017 2:17pm

Roger_007 wrote: »

Monologue? It was more like a sermon. She gave the judge in the Humphries case a right lambasting as well as Eamon Dunphy for his comments.
She also 'ordered' the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence.
Maybe, in future such cases, judges could consult Ciara before passing sentence?

I want the DPP to appeal the leniency of the sentence as well - it was a joke of a sentence. And Dunphy's comments were an absolute farce as well…

25-10-2017 2:24pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Still I think there is something wrong in a society that rates repetitive abuse of children 3 times less seriously than customs scam (garlic importer).

The person who committed that crime (a 1.6 milliion euro tax fraud!) was sentenced to two years on appeal.

Part of the reason for the 2.5 year sentence in Humphries' case is due to the fact that the Court must take into account the maximum sentence (five or ten years for defilement, depending on the circumstances). The harshest sentence must be reserved for the very worst possible circumstances with no mitigating factors, otherwise an appeal court will simply reduce the sentence.

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

meeeeh · 25-10-2017 2:30pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The person who committed that crime (a 1.6 milliion euro tax fraud!) was sentenced to two years on appeal.

Part of the reason for the 2.5 year sentence in Humphries' case is due to the fact that the Court must take into account the maximum sentence (five or ten years for defilement, depending on the circumstances). The harshest sentence must be reserved for the very worst possible circumstances with no mitigating factors, otherwise an appeal court will simply reduce the sentence.

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

Yes but do the sentences have to be concurrent? He was not found guilty of only one offence. I know that tax fraud was reduced on appeal in the same way as this one will be probably appealed.

kunst nugget · 25-10-2017 2:32pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

The constraints of sentencing notwithstanding, she didn't exactly cover herself in glory with her 'It would be difficult not to have sympathy for him' comment.

ThisRegard · 25-10-2017 2:32pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

The judge is not getting too much blame. She said it was hard not to feel sorry for Humphries, took into account his fall from grace as if that somehow mitigated against a higher sentence, and took into account the 2 character witnesses when deciding upon the sentence.

She had the maximum sentence (relatively short given the offence) to work with, could have applied it or close to it, and if there was issues there let Humphries and his legal team decide if they were going to appeal it.

25-10-2017 2:34pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes but do the sentences have to be concurrent?

I believe so... the two convictions arose from the one 'criminal transaction', during the same time period. Both crimes (exploitation and defilement) were closely connected. The principle behind this is that a person shouldn't be punished multiple times for variations on the same criminal behaviour.

If I steal a bike, for example, there may be three or four potential criminal charges available to prosecute me, even if they all capture the same basic crime, individually. So you could get some very anomalous results, with long sentences for crimes that happen to overlap with lots of criminal statutes.

I'm not saying that I agree with this approach; perhaps the judge doesn't even agree with it. But it is, as far as I know, a principle that has been laid down by the higher courts in this country.

25-10-2017 2:53pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

She had the maximum sentence (relatively short given the offence) to work with, could have applied it or close to it, and if there was issues there let Humphries and his legal team decide if they were going to appeal it.

Sorry, I've just seen this and your previous post. It's probably something that could be answered in better detail Legal Discussion, but a judge can't just go abusing the legal system (much less, giving false hope to a victim) by playing games with the Court of Appeal, when everyone knows a sentence cannot stand.

The answer to more severe sentences upon conviction of sexual crimes lies with the Oireachtas. It is their prerogative to extend the maximum sentences, and therefore to provide the courts with more capacity to proportionately increase the terms of imprisonment, throughout the spectrum.

ThisRegard · 25-10-2017 3:18pm

Probably best suited for legal discussion alright. But I don't think applying a sentence at or near the maximum possible is abusing the legal system. They are part of the legal system, and they apply the law within the parameters they're permitted, such as maximum sentences for offences. They shouldn't have (and I know some judges, rightly or wrongly, have referred to this in the past) one eye on the appeals court while doing so.

BarryD2 · 25-10-2017 3:20pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The person who committed that crime (a 1.6 milliion euro tax fraud!) was sentenced to two years on appeal.

Part of the reason for the 2.5 year sentence in Humphries' case is due to the fact that the Court must take into account the maximum sentence (five or ten years for defilement, depending on the circumstances). The harshest sentence must be reserved for the very worst possible circumstances with no mitigating factors, otherwise an appeal court will simply reduce the sentence.

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

What about our esteemed TD, Mick Wallace? Didn't he defraud the state of €2 million VAT? How many years is Mick getting in the Joy?

25-10-2017 3:41pm

ThisRegard wrote: »

Probably best suited for legal discussion alright. But I don't think applying a sentence at or near the maximum possible is abusing the legal system. They are part of the legal system, and they apply the law within the parameters they're permitted, such as maximum sentences for offences.

But then the question would arise, what about some hypothetical offender in the same position of Tom Humphries who committed the same acts, over a longer period, with a younger girl, perhaps used violence, expressed no remorse, and put his victim through the intimidating experience of a criminal trial? Surely they couldn't both be deserving of identical punishment?

I don't think justice would be served by giving each offender an identical, maximum sentence. Sentences must be imposed relative to the gravity of the offending behaviour, taking into account any mitigating circumtances. Otherwise, if you'll forgive the crass expression, one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb.

Anyway, to bring this back to Ciara Kelly's comments, I found myself agreeing with her approach, but I really think the responsibility lies with the Oireachtas, and not with the courts, on this occasion.

BarryD2 wrote: »

What about our esteemed TD, Mick Wallace? Didn't he defraud the state of €2 million VAT? How many years is Mick getting in the Joy?

I don't know Barry, as far as I know he made a settlement with Revenue. I don't think it has any relevance to Ciara Kelly's comments, nor for that matter, does the ubiquitous 'garlic man'/ tax cheat.

Sleeper12 · 25-10-2017 5:13pm

ThisRegard wrote:

She had a pretty good and strong opening monologue today.

Her monologue reminded me Gerry Ryans type of monologue when he was worked up about something.

I thought she was brilliant, was talking a little fast maybe but she handled it the topic very well. I felt she rush the speakers a little. She was able to get you to get into the victims shoes.

I shudder to think how George Hook would covers such a sensitive issue

Sleeper12 · 25-10-2017 5:19pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote:

The judge is getting way too much blame here. She is constrained by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, as enacted by the Oireachtas.

I don't think the judge is get to much blame. I'm not one demanding a death sentence or even a life sentence but she got it wrong with 2.5 years & I think this will be shown when the sentence is appealed

Grolschevik · 25-10-2017 8:41pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I shudder to think how George Hook would covers such a sensitive issue

Possibly something like this: "But where's the personal responsibility in replying to his texts and not reporting them?"

meeeeh · 25-10-2017 11:34pm

That's low and I'm not sure this thread is about G Hook. But if we want to go there I think she made very good point about Irish Times article which was an eulogy to his journalistic achievements with a by the way mention of his indiscretions. A slight whiff of double standards there.

26-10-2017 12:26am

meeeeh wrote: »

That's low and I'm not sure this thread is about G Hook. But if we want to go there...

We don't.

Ol' Donie · 26-10-2017 12:21pm

I was a bit concerned that yesterday's intro monologue (not that I disagree with a word she said in it) might mean a soapbox at the start of the show everyday.

Not so, no sign of it today.

So far, so good with this show.

sligojoek · 26-10-2017 12:26pm

Just sh1te talk to start off today

Lunchtime Live with Ciara Kelly [Mod warning post #1]

Comments