Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Stand With Eamon Dunphy

12467…47

Comments

  • #152
    AnneFrank
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭AnneFrank


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    A lot of repealers are extremely intolerant of anyone who dares disagree with them. Maybe that's just the twitter bubble crowd, though

    not really, have a look at the repeal thread in after hours, if you're a no voter you get attacked and then banned


  • #153
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    AnneFrank wrote: »
    not really, have a look at the repeal thread in after hours, if you're a no voter you get attacked and then banned

    It's pointless trying to engage with them. Anytime I make an effort I just get a tidal wave of ad hominem abuse mixed with preachy sanctimony and sentimentality. Better talking to people face to face.


  • #154
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,303 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    I keep seeing this and it honestly, genuinely puzzles me. I hand-on-heart haven't seen anything from the Yes side even approaching the kind of tactics employed elsewhere. Genuine request here: can someone please point me in the direction of some examples of disrespectful/unacceptable campaign behaviour from any of the Yes organisations?
    There is a thread here
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057861599&page=27
    Id recommend reading from Page 1, its been a taken a tad of course via the discussions on it.


  • #155
    gmisk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,303 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    Apologies duplicate post


  • #156
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,628 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Admittedly I hadn't (I never claimed I did), but I have since.

    No surprise it was soft touch to be honest. Very difficult to give her praise for being so even handed and patient under such circumstances. You might as well give Real Madrid with Ronaldo & co praise for beating their under-8's team in training. There's nothing to be learned from somebody who isn't challenged.

    To use an example of how Dunphy laid up these points for her, he:

    - Spoke about the citizens assembly and why that was used to spur on the referendum. The point was about representation, which Mullaly said the CA did (it didn't), and how the Dail isn't representative (it is). Dunphy then went on to agree with her because of "the scarcity of women", a hollow point needlessly served up by Eamo.

    - He then made some sort of leading question about patriarchy.

    - He also then repeatedly answered her question for her in the sense that it wasn't really a question at all.

    Mullaly's colours show up very clearly when anybody gives her even the most minor of pushbacks. She pulls out of debates if she doesn't like the opponent. She has sought (and succeeded in) getting comments disabled on her articles, one must not criticise Una. Her articles are a collection of misandry.

    She has also used her own personal health struggles as a means to emotionally sway people or bat away opponents about why she, as a lesbian, should be permitted to get married. That's not to say she shouldn't be allowed, but let's leave the personal stuff out of it.

    I never claimed this to be a Waters v Mullaly point either by the way. You'll notice I haven't mentioned Waters once, think what you like about him you'll find no pushback here, however I can't stand over a viewpoint that puts Una as some sort of reasonable commentator on anything.

    Completely disagree with almost everything you have to say there.

    She defended her points of view robustly like an adult, without it turning into a slagging match - what else do you think she should have been challenged on?

    Yes, Dunphy wasn't being antagonistic towards her, but to thrash Una Mulally wasn't the purpose of the interview; he was trying to get her to flesh out her reasons for voting Yes and doing it in a relatively respectful and grown up manner.

    And as regards to her own personal circumstances being used as fodder in the debate - Well, for a start, she never mentioned her own sexual orientation in the interview whatsoever and she only brought up her own previous health problems as a means to illustrate that the legislation, whatever may happen with it, is not actually going to personally affect her in any case - so in a sense her support for repeal goes beyond the personal and should have been thought of as a question for society as a whole. Compare that to Waters and his highly personalised anecdotes about his grandchildren...

    To say you never wanted to make it a Waters V Mulally argument is a little bit disengenuous. Your initial post yesterday was a multiquote that referenced one poster's opinion on the Water's interview and their further opinion on the Mulally interview. You seemed to be infering that drawing that comparison between the two speakers was laughable - in the sense that, somehow, of the two Mulally couldn't be taken seriously. So, if you weren't interested in Waters why did you make mention of what someone else had to say about him in the first place?


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭minikin


    murpho999 wrote: »
    I got the impression that he was an undecided voter but leaning towards no.

    Nothing two faced about it.

    Might be a tactic for interviewing too to get more out of them.


    These exact quotes might clarify that impression of Dunphy:

    Waters interview - 13m 44sec
    "I am a no voter"

    Mullally interview - 2m 20sec
    "I will be upfront... I'm a sorta... an undecided"

    and

    Mullally interview - 31m 06sec
    "...so, I'm not a NO voter"

    It would take turning the reality distortion device all the way up to eleven to say he didn't play ducks and drakes with Waters in order to get an interview.

    Dunphy (and I like him hugely as a broadcaster / personality) had no problem trying to undermine Waters' fundamental belief system about when life begins.

    Had he done similar to Mullally (gone down the same sensationalist line of asking "aren't you supporting child murder") it would have been just as objectionable as it's attacking someones fundamental principles for a cheap 'headline'.


  • #158
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,628 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    minikin wrote: »

    Dunphy (and I like him hugely as a broadcaster / personality) had no problem trying to undermine Waters' fundamental belief system about when life begins.

    Had he done similar to Mullally (gone down the same sensationalist line of asking "aren't you supporting child murder") it would have been just as objectionable as it's attacking someones fundamental principles for a cheap 'headline'.

    So asking Waters when, in his view, did human life begin was sensationalist? How so? Surely it's a basic question in the debate. If Waters can feel so threatened by that question being put to him, what does it say about the solidity of his arguments?


  • #159
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭minikin


    Arghus wrote: »
    So asking Waters when, in his view, did human life begin was sensationalist? How so? Surely it's a basic question in the debate. If Waters can feel so threatened by that question being put to him, what does it say about the solidity of his arguments?

    Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.


  • #160
    Mancomb Seepgood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 417 ✭✭Mancomb Seepgood


    minikin wrote: »
    Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.

    Black and white positions are difficult to avoid in this debate.It's a topic that is deeply personal.I didn't get a sense that Waters was being backed into a corner,the fact that Eamon brought up abortion pills seems to be something that really annoyed him and it was downhill from there.The questions were reasonable and nothing that someone who has taken a public position on these matters should have been surprised by.


  • #161
    minikin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,980 ✭✭✭minikin


    Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »
    Black and white positions are difficult to avoid in this debate.It's a topic that is deeply personal.I didn't get a sense that Waters was being backed into a corner,the fact that Eamon brought up abortion pills seems to be something that really annoyed him and it was downhill from there.The questions were reasonable and nothing that someone who has taken a public position on these matters should have been surprised by.

    Unless, which Waters’ reaction suggests, the basis of the interview was agreed beforehand that it wouldn’t be a hitjob on a supposed friend. Looks like Dunphy acted in bad faith here in order to get Waters on his podcast... hence the reaction.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,628 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    minikin wrote: »
    Because it’s venturing into territory that quickly decends into black and white positions... backing your guest into a corner only a quarter of the way into an interview is a strange way of enlightening the debate.

    Maybe, but Waters had a good five minutes at the start to, in my view, largely waffle away and by the time he started talking about The Supreme Court was already beginning to sound less and less coherent.

    I got the sense that Eamonn already felt at that early stage that the interview was in danger of going off the rails and tried to bring it back to the fundamentals before it got even more formless.

    You have to start somewhere in this debate and putting the question of when you can say human life actually begins is as good a place as any - especially so if your guest's argument is rooted in the belief of the inviolable sanctity of the unborn human life.

    I don't think it was a case of trying to put the guest in the corner and certainly not near to a form of "attack": Dunphy hadn't even began to properly articulate a question or explain a point of view on the matter, because Waters was immediately hot under the collar about even being asked about such a thing. A hard question is not necessarily an unfair question.

    We don't know how Dunphy may have continued with that line of questioning, because Waters flounced off abruptly before anything meaningful could even be discussed. Surely, if he wants to contribute to the debate he has to expect these questions and not regard them as personalised attacks; it's very petulant.


  • #163
    groovyg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,049 ✭✭✭groovyg


    Anytime I see or hear John Waters I always think of Sinead O Connor and wonder what the hell was she thinking, talk about polar opposites.


  • #164
    Utopia Parkway
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,372 ✭✭✭✭Utopia Parkway


    Arghus wrote: »
    Nothing hilarious about it all. You should listen to it.

    The interview with Una Mullaly was a good and intelligent debate and she made her points in an articulate and passionate manner. Her reputation precedes her in many ways, but based on what she had to say in the interview, I thought she came across extremely well.

    Dunphy asked her the questions and she was able to engage with them and defend her points of views, without resorting to childishly stomping off abruptly. There's no comparison between the level of debate in her interview and the corresponding one with John Waters: Mullaly's is clearly and objectively far superior and to claim otherwise is totally and utterly farcical.

    In fairness just about anyone would seem reasonable and sane compared to John Waters.

    Personally I have zero time for Una Mullaly so won't be listening to her interview.


  • #165
    jooksavage
    Registered Users Posts: 1,532 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    Arghus wrote: »
    Maybe, but Waters had a good five minutes at the start to, in my view, largely waffle away and by the time he started talking about The Supreme Court was already beginning to sound less and less coherent.

    I got the sense that Eamonn already felt at that early stage that the interview was in danger of going off the rails and tried to bring it back to the fundamentals before it got even more formless.

    You have to start somewhere in this debate and putting the question of when you can say human life actually begins is as good a place as any - especially so if your guest's argument is rooted in the belief of the inviolable sanctity of the unborn human life.

    I don't think it was a case of trying to put the guest in the corner and certainly not near to a form of "attack": Dunphy hadn't even began to properly articulate a question or explain a point of view on the matter, because Waters was immediately hot under the collar about even being asked about such a thing. A hard question is not necessarily an unfair question.

    We don't know how Dunphy may have continued with that line of questioning, because Waters flounced off abruptly before anything meaningful could even be discussed. Surely, if he wants to contribute to the debate he has to expect these questions and not regard them as personalised attacks; it's very petulant.

    100% this. Coherence was rapidly draining out of the interview in less than 10 minutes. If Dunphy let Waters off it was going to turn into an abstract, dull, onanisitic monologue. The childish way he up sticks and leaves was pathetic and goes to show Waters is incapable of communicating on any terms but his own.


  • #166
    Hurrache
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    minikin wrote: »
    Unless, which Waters’ reaction suggests, the basis of the interview was agreed beforehand that it wouldn’t be a hitjob on a supposed friend. Looks like Dunphy acted in bad faith here in order to get Waters on his podcast... hence the reaction.

    A hitjob? What interview were you listening to. Waters has been on the verge of meltdown for a longtime. He fell over the edge after being asked an unsurprising question.


  • #167
    briany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,219 ✭✭✭✭briany


    Not being privy to the conversation that went on in order to get Waters on the podcast, so it's possible that Dunphy did misrepresent what tone the conversation would have. It's also possible Waters misunderstood what he was going into. Either way, it was a pretty spectacular outburst.

    Dunphy's line, "...but I think it's important to put this up there". I think the subtext being, "Get a load of this! Some laugh." :pac:.


  • #168
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,628 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    briany wrote: »
    Not being privy to the conversation that went on in order to get Waters on the podcast, so it's possible that Dunphy did misrepresent what tone the conversation would have. It's also possible Waters misunderstood what he was going into. Either way, it was a pretty spectacular outburst.

    Dunphy's line, "...but I think it's important to put this up there". I think the subtext being, "Get a load of this! Some laugh." :pac:.

    In a way I feel like it was a bit of a cheap-shot to leave the audio in of Waters storming out cursing like a drunken sailor, they could have totally cut that final 30/40 seconds out of the episode if they really, really wanted too: he would still looked like an ejit, but with it left in he looks like a total fucking ejit. They knew well they had comedy gold on their hands.


  • #169
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    groovyg wrote: »
    Anytime I see or hear John Waters I always think of Sinead O Connor and wonder what the hell was she thinking, talk about polar opposites.

    What was he thinking more like


  • #170
    applehunter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,056 ✭✭✭applehunter


    Arghus wrote: »
    In a way I feel like it was a bit of a cheap-shot to leave the audio in of Waters storming out cursing like a drunken sailor, they could have totally cut that final 30/40 seconds out of the episode if they really, really wanted too: he would still looked like an ejit, but with it left in he looks like a total fucking ejit. They knew well they had comedy gold on their hands.

    Dunphy couldn't have asked for better publicity.

    Great addition to the podcast scene.


  • #171
    dastardly00
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,457 ✭✭✭✭dastardly00


    Hurrache wrote: »
    A hitjob? What interview were you listening to. Waters has been on the verge of meltdown for a longtime. He fell over the edge after being asked an unsurprising question.


    He must have been listening to Nicola Talent talk about the Kinahan-Hutch feud :P :D


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    PCeeeee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭PCeeeee


    Eamo and Micks assessment of Paul Williams today was 'interesting'


  • #173
    Conservative
    Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Conservative


    PCeeeee wrote: »
    Eamo and Micks assessment of Paul Williams today was 'interesting'

    "Sheriff Williams". Great stuff from Dunphy LOL


  • #174
    Still Ill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Still Ill


    I see he's finally picked up a sponsor. Surprised it took so long, but glad that the podcasts will be continuing anyway


  • #175
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Still Ill wrote: »
    I see he's finally picked up a sponsor. Surprised it took so long, but glad that the podcasts will be continuing anyway

    Ya, but I think the show has actually picked-up a bit more traction recently in that I see it being mentioned/retweeted on Twitter more frequently - if that's any indication of popularity...
    In any case, I'm happy to see him get a sponsor as I really enjoy the podcast, so long may it continue! :D


  • #176
    Cartman78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,714 ✭✭✭Cartman78


    John Waters = sponsor magnet :-)


  • #177
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Cartman78 wrote: »
    John Waters = sponsor magnet :-)
    :D:D Alas, that explains it!


  • #178
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    This post has been deleted.


  • #179
    McGrath5
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭McGrath5


    Fantastic interview today with Richard Dunne, plenty of funny moments.


  • #180
    Morrison J
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,908 ✭✭✭Morrison J


    Only really discovered the brilliance of this podcast recently. Going back through some older episodes. Listened to Duff, Dignam and Doherty episodes this week. All brilliant. Any other must listens?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Mantis Toboggan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,099 ✭✭✭✭Mantis Toboggan


    Morrison J wrote: »
    Only really discovered the brilliance of this podcast recently. Going back through some older episodes. Listened to Duff, Dignam and Doherty episodes this week. All brilliant. Any other must listens?

    John waters ;)

    Free Palestine 🇵🇸



  • #182
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,628 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    McGrath5 wrote: »
    Fantastic interview today with Richard Dunne, plenty of funny moments.

    Yeah, really good interview. Dunne seems like a down to earth guy.

    That Sven story, "every day is ladie's day", was gas.


  • #183
    Arghus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,628 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Found this week's discussion with John Giles thoroughly entertaining and hilarious. Giles was full of disdain for the "social medias" and "haircuts."


  • #184
    McGrath5
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,395 ✭✭✭McGrath5


    Giles calling Harry Kane a “simple lad”.


  • #185
    Say Your Number
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,779 Mod ✭✭✭✭Say Your Number


    I liked the two parter with Giles, even though I'd heard a fair amount of it before, was interesting to hear a bit more about his time at Shamrock Rovers and that people thought he was only doing it to line his own pockets and there was a bit of hatred towards him here at that time.

    Dunphy getting irritated by the confusion about how Charlton got the job was funny, what you see is what you get with him, there is no falseness to him, that's to be admired.


  • #186
    dulpit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,403 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Did anyone listen to the recent episode with Mario Rosenstock? Eamon kept going back to Mario being a ladies' man and stuff like that, was quite off-putting.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    dastardly00
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,457 ✭✭✭✭dastardly00


    dulpit wrote: »
    Did anyone listen to the recent episode with Mario Rosenstock? Eamon kept going back to Mario being a ladies' man and stuff like that, was quite off-putting.

    Listened to it today.
    Eamo was a bit all over the shop... He got things mixed up, his research on Rosenstock wasn't great, and yes he kept going back to Mario being a ladies' man... But yet I still enjoyed the interview...
    I find Mario an interesting and very intelligent guy but I don't think I enjoyed it just because he was on it!


  • #188
    allybhoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,699 ✭✭✭allybhoy


    dulpit wrote: »
    Did anyone listen to the recent episode with Mario Rosenstock? Eamon kept going back to Mario being a ladies' man and stuff like that, was quite off-putting.

    Strange interview, got the impression that Dunphy had either heard he had a reputation or else seen it for himself first hand... very little depth to the interview at all really


  • #189
    steve_r
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭steve_r


    He came back to it a few times alright. Maybe there's something there he wanted to draw out.

    Oliver Callan was on the stand recently enough so I was half expecting Dunphy to raise that rivalry.

    I did like the Roy and Jose stories


  • #190
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Jesus, that was an absolutely shocking piece of propaganda with Fr. Peter McVerry in today's podcast. Completely one-sided and, in my opinion, ignorant of the current zeitgeist. Dunphy saying that media commentators aren't sympathetic to the homeless crisis? Saying there are is no left-wing politicians? The icing on the cake was labeling people who aren't concerned with the crisis as Trump supporters! I have a lot of sympathy with some of the homeless, and I realise there is a crisis in this country, but when Dunphy used Margaret Cash as his example, it made me sick.


  • #191
    WindmillWarrior
    Registered Users Posts: 685 ✭✭✭WindmillWarrior


    Propaganda! This man has worked with and helped homeless people for a long long time. I think he knows what he is talking about!


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    WindmillWarrior wrote: »
    Propaganda! This man has worked with and helped homeless people for a long long time. I think he knows what he is talking about!
    Did you listen to the piece, or just offer a knee-jerk response to my comment? I agree 100% that he knows what he is talking about, homelessness is an issue, of that I have no doubt. The issue is using Margaret Cash as the anecdotal evidence, without questioning a single one of her motives. Using a piece of evidence in this manner, to forward a one-sided view of an issue, is propaganda in my eyes.


  • #193
    blackwave
    Registered Users Posts: 832 ✭✭✭blackwave


    Have to say that I enjoy these podcasts more than I thought I would. I thought the INM hacking was very interesting though the person implicated (not sure if I can name him given his love of litigation) will probably get away with it again.


  • #194
    Conservative
    Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭Conservative


    Still an excellent podcast. The Trump coverage in particular is some of the best out there imo. No hysterics and Niall Stanage and Eamo work well together.

    Delighted he got Tesco as a sponsor now too.


  • #195
    John Hutton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,301 ✭✭✭John Hutton


    Got a chuckle out of Eamo saying he had Wes stashed in his attic


  • #196
    OldMrBrennan83
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,658 ✭✭✭✭OldMrBrennan83


    He nearly crawled up inside Ewan McKenna.


  • #197
    dulpit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,403 ✭✭✭✭dulpit


    Patww79 wrote: »
    He nearly crawled up inside Ewan McKenna.

    Interesting conversation though, worth a listen.

    He (Dunphy) has a few ticks, he is usually very deferential to his guests and has a tendency to go back over story again and again, even if it's a regular topic (eg the INM story with Mick Clifford). It's a very good podcast all the same..


  • #198
    dominatinMC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,941 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Patww79 wrote: »
    He nearly crawled up inside Ewan McKenna.
    Ha, even though I agree with a lot of what Ewan MacKenna had to say, I appreciate that it was a very one-sided conversation. I think Dunphy needs to be a bit more impartial with his guests, and offer another viewpoint - maybe bring on another guest to counter the argument(s). I would agree with the others though, that it is a great, independent podcast. Much better than listening to the likes of Matt Cooper on The Last Word anyway :pac:


  • #199
    ThunbergsAreGo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭ThunbergsAreGo


    dulpit wrote: »
    Interesting conversation though, worth a listen.

    He (Dunphy) has a few ticks, he is usually very deferential to his guests and has a tendency to go back over story again and again, even if it's a regular topic (eg the INM story with Mick Clifford). It's a very good podcast all the same..

    I really like the way he makes it look like he has inside of knowledge of very public events/people

    "So Richard (Dunne), let me tell you, under Brian Kerr you became European Champions"

    "There once was a player, Maradona was his name...."


  • #200
    riemann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,063 ✭✭✭riemann


    I said it before and I'll say it again, really enjoying these podcasts.

    Although, I felt the recent one discussing Syria was bizarre. Apparently Syria created ISIS and Russia/Iran enjoy blowing up hospitals and civilians for a laugh. I'll have to admit I know very little about the whole affair (like most people, whether they like to admit it or not), but the whole thing came across as agenda driven with plenty of references to "the regime".

    Eamon let Ronan Tynan dodge a lot of questions and didn't pull hum up on the fact he made a film about the Syrian war but in Turkey! Possibly not the best location to do so.

    Having said that I listened to the whole interview to see where it went.


  • #201
    humberklog
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,580 Mod ✭✭✭✭humberklog


    Anyone finding that new episodes aren't popping up on the site?

    For example- I clicked a link that sent me to the latest Nicola Talent chat which worked fine. But when I go to the site itself on my browser the most recent upload is Episode 229 (football from last week).

    I'm not a subscriber.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement